
Glass! 



Book- 



• 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 



"He who cannot express his thoughts correctly in 
his own language, is not likely to obtain credit for 
much knowledge of any other ; nor will an ill-spelt, 
ungrammatical letter impress anyone with the idea 
that the writer of it is an i educated' 1 man; while, 
on the other hand, the Englishman whose linguistic 
acquirements do not extend beyond the language of 
Shakspcare, but who knows that tlic .roughly and 
can wield it well, possesses an instrument with which 
he may fight his way to almost any position he may 
choose to aspire to, whether he turn his thoughts to 
poetry or to politics, to literature or to commerce." — 
The Reader, January 28, 1865. 




!| Criiinsiu m t\t gmt jorf fetataj's dssap 



QUEEN'S ENGLISH. 



<v%ashington moon, 

FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETT OF LITERATURE. 



£ixtfc $<tti*0». 



GEORGE ROUTLEDGE & SONS, PUBLISHERS, 
41 G BROOME STREET. > T EW-YORK. 

1871. 



mi 







"Literature, if it is to flourish, must have a 
standard of taste built up, which shall expand to 
meet new forms of excellence, but which shall pre- 
serve that which is excellent in old forms, and shall 
serve as a guide to the rejection of whatever is bad, 
pretentious, and artificial ; and it is the business of 
critics to see that this standard is built up and main- 
tained." — Saturday Review. 



By Transfer 

NOV 21 1916 



PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION. 



I have been asked not to publish 'another 
edition of this work ; but I do not think 
I should be benefiting the cause of lite- 
rature by complying with that request. 
" The care of the national language" says 
Schlegel, l< is at all times a sacred trust. 
" Every man of education should make it 
" the object of his unceasing concern to pre- 
" serve his language pure" ; and I consider 
that I am doing only my duty in that 
respect, when I re-issue this work, which, 
by exposing the errors of one of exalted 
position and reputed learning, makes a 



PREFACE. 
"light in the church" serve as a beacon 
to all around. 

I wish it to be distinctly understood that 
in publishing these criticisms I have not 
been actuated by any feeling of ill-will 
towards the Bean of Canterbury. I object 
not to the man, but to the man's language ; 
it is fauky in the extreme ; and since the 
faults of teachers, if suffered to pass* un- 
reproved, soon become the teachers of 
faults, it was necessary that . some one 
should take upon himself the task of 
" demonstrating y ', as l I7ie Edinburgh Re- 
view ' said, " that while the Dean undertook 
" to instruct others, he ims himself but a 
t{ castaway hi matters of grammar ". As 
a fellow of the Royal Society of Litera- 
ture, one of the objects of which is te to 
u preserve the purity of tiie English lan- 
guage", I took upon myself the demon- 
stration. How far I have succeeded, each 



PREFACE. vU 

individual reader will determine for him- 
self; but the rapid sale of three editions 
of ' The Dean's English ', and the demand 
for a fourth, give very flattering evidence 
' that, by the public generally, the work 
has been favourably received. 

Since the publication of the last edition 
of ' The Dearts English ', the Dean has 
brought out the second edition of l The 
- Queen's English \ One circumstance, in 4 
connexion with that, is worthy of remark. 
In '•Good Words' the Dean said to his 
readers, — "The less you turn your. words 
" right or left to observe Mr. Moon's rules, 
" the better ". It will provoke a smile on * 
the face of the reader of these pages to 
be told, that the Dean himself, although 
he gives this advice to others, has altered 
and struck out, altogether not fewer than 
eight-and-twenty passages which I had 
condemned as faulty. For the entertain- 



viii PREFACE. 

merit of the curious in such matters, X 
have given, in parallel columns in this 
edition, the sentences as originally pub- 
lished in '•Good Words\ and condemned 
in ' The Decays English'; and the altered ' 
sentences as they now appear in the 
Dean's second edition of his l Queen's 
'-English '. 

The Dean's book contains much valu- 

, able information, collected from various 

sources ; but it is blended with so very 

much that would be really injurious to 

the student of literature, that the work 

can never safely be recommended for his 

r guidance. The style, too, in which it is 

written, is so hopelessly bad, that no 

amount of alteration could obtain for it 

the praise of being a model for chasteness 

and elegance of expression. We still read 

* in it, of persons making " a precious mess" 

of their work! and expletives, we are 



PREFACE. 
informed, serve to "grease the loheels of 
"talk"! Improvements, it is true, have 
been made in some of the paragraphs; a 
man is no longer spoken of by the slang 
phrase "an individual"; but the Dean is 
so strangely forgetful of the courtesy due 
to women, that he. uses, respecting them, 
the most debasing of all slang phrases. 
He speaks of "some of the European 
"rulers"; [there are but two to whom the 
Dean's words can refer ; — our own Sove- 
reign Lady, and the Queen of Spain ;] and 
he describes these by an epithet which is 
equally applicable to dogs ! — they are 



Surely, after this, it will be only modest 
of the Dean to retire from the office of 
lecturer on the Queen's English; and, if 
his good sense has not utterly left him, 
he will wisely reflect on the folly of at- 
tracting attention to a style of writing 



PREFACE, 
"ichich", as Junius said of the character 
of Sir William Draper, "will only pass 
t; without censure when it passes xoithout 
" observation ". 

London^ March % 1865. 



PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. 



The issue of a second edition of these 
letters afforded me an opportunity for 
noticing certain explanations of my oppo- 
nent, the Dean of Canterbury, and for 
extending my criticisms to his ' Plea for 
c the Queerfs English, JVb. III\ 

I resumed the subject in perfect con- 
fidence that he, who in the recent edition 
of his essays on the Queen's English had 
honoured me with his expressions of 
friendship, and had thought it quite con- 
sistent with friendship that he should 
combat my objections, and maintain and 



PREFACE. 
defend his own opinions, would not refuse 
me a right, which lie claimed for *him- 
self. 

I did not extend my criticisms to his 
recently published volume ' TJie Queen's, 
'•EnglisK / bur, taking up the subject where 
I had left off', 1 continued my strictures 
on the essays as they originally appeared 
in "Good Words'. 

The reader is doubtless aware that, " in 
"a considerably altered form", the said 
essays were subsequently " presented to 
"the public". In that volume some of 
the passages which I had criticised 
were defended; others were, very pru- 
dently, omitted; and many more were 
"considerably altered "; but sentences 
" altered " by my opponent are not always 
improved. The following one has gone 
through the process ; — " I used the word 
"in an unusual sense, but at the same- 



PREFACE. xiii 

"time one fully sanctioned by usage" ' . 

This needs no comment. The Dean 
changed the structure of that passage 
also, where, between the pronoun " it " 
and the noun " habit " to which it refers, 
eight-and-twenty substantives intervene. 
"But", it has been remarked, "in alter- 
ing this passage he opened his armour 
" in such a way as to give the critic a 
" most tempting opportunity for inflicting 
" another gash on his somewhat careless 
" opponent." In ' Good Words ' the Dean 
wrote, — " You perhaps have heard of the 
" barber who, while operating on a gentle- 
" man, expressed his opinion, that, after all, 
"the cholera was in the hair." As "altered", 
the sentence runs thus, — "We remember in 
" Punch the barber who, while operating", 
&c. This, of course, suggests the idea 
that Punch, besides being a wit, and a 
satirist, is also a barber, and that he not 



xiv PREFACE. 

only operates upon human consciences "but 
also upon human chins ! The Dean will 
very likely put in his irresistible plea, — 
" We do not write for idiots " ; but, seeing 
he is always trying to make us believe 
that the style he advocates is one pre- 
eminent for its direct and simple clearness, 
he should so write that it would be almost 
impossible to misunderstand him. Had 
he made but the most trifling alteration 
in his sentence, no other meaning, than 
that which he wished to express, would 
have been suggested. Why, for example, 
did he not write, — " We remember read- 
" ing in Punch, of the barber who," &c. ? 
This would have been much more per- 
spicuous. 

The Dean thought it advisable to 
change the name also of his work. It was 
do longer ''A Plea for the Queen's English \ 
but ' The Queen's English \ This alter* 



PREFACE, 
ation compelled me to give up the 
title under which the first of these letters 
appeared, namely, ' A Defence of the 
1 Queen' } s English '/ lest, by still retaining 
that title, it should seem, to those persons 
who are unacquainted with the controversy, 
to imply that I had actually written a 
defence of my opponent's book — a defence 
of ' The Queen? s English ' / 

It is with sincere pleasure that I record 
my acceptance of Dr. Alford's explanation 
respecting the objectionable epithets con- 
tained in his reply to my first letter, — 
they were not intended for me, but for 
some hypothetical person. — I request the 
reader will receive my remarks on the 
said epithets as intended for some hy- 
pothetical Dean. 

Since those remarks were published 1 
have had the honour of becoming person- 
ally acquainted with my opponent; and 



xri PREFACE. 

those who enjoy the privilege of his society 
will have no difficulty in believing, that 
I sincerely respect him as ;i man, al- 
though I cannot think very highly of 
him as an English scholar. 

London, October* 1884. 



CONTENTS. 



ADJECTIVES. 

paq a 
" A decided weak point", or " A decidedly 

weak point*' . ... .53 
"Not a strict neuter-substantive," or "Not 

strictly a neuter-substantive " . 56,132 
"Speak no coarser than usual ", or " Speak 

not more coarsely than usual " . 55,92 

" The words nearest connected ", or " The 

words most nearly connected 1 ' . . . 55 
The rule respecting "jirst and last" and 

" former and latter " . . . .150 

ADVERBS. 

Dr. Blair on adverbs . . . .15 

" Hath the Lord only spoken by Moses ?" 
or " Hath the Lord spoken only by 



81 



" His own use so frequently of it ", or " His 

own so frequent use of it ". . . 93 
"How nicely she looks ", or " How nice she 

looks" .95 

" It appears still more plainly ", or "It 

appears still more plain " . . .95 
" I only bring forward 'some things", or "I 

bring forward some things 07ily" 14, 1 27 
** They may be correctly classified ", or " They 

may correctly be classified " . .113,138 
u We merely speak of numbers", or " "We 

speak of numbers merely " . . . 14 

b 2 



CONTENTS. 

AMBIGUITY. 

PAGB 

Dr. Campbell on constructive ambiguity . 23 
Lord Karnes on constructive ambiguity . 10 
A back-wood planted with thoughts . . 61 
A cow that tossed about a street . . 19 
A man losing his mother in the papers 13, 127 
A paragraph of less than ten lines, yet so am- 
biguously worded that it admits of 10,240 
different readings . . . 68, 135 
A strange sentence from Dean Swift's writings 18 
A witness "intoxicated by the motion of an 

honourable member" ... 18 

"Compositors without any mercy " 
"Compositors without the slightest compunc- 
tion" .... 
Expressing asentence,orexpressingthemean- 

ing 

Expressing a woman 
Human kidneys in dogs 
Intellectual qualities of raiment 
Incongruous association of ideas 13, 67, 127 

" I will introduce the body of — my essay " 
Obscure writing .... 

Professors walking off with dictionaries 60, 134 
" Sometimes the editors fall, from their ig- 
norance" .... 
" The beaux painted their faces, as well as 

the women "... 
" The Greeks wheeled about and halted, with 

the river on their backs " , . . 21 
" The one rule of all others " . . 54, 131 

CONJUNCTIONS. 

Does "than" govern an accusative case? 94,146,167 
"As well as", and "So well as" . . 98 
" This [as well as that] fix it " . . 1 16, 139 
"Try and think" 168 



1,126 

64 

64 
35 



3,127 
103 



19 



CONTENTS. xix 

CRITICISM. 

PAGK 

An extract from '■The Saturday Review' . 176 
ELLIPSIS. 

Brevity should be subordinate to perspicuity 108 

" Quack, Quack ?" " Bow, wow " ! . . 109 

Unallowable ellipsis 28 

" We call a cup-board a cubbard, and so of 

many other compound words " . 58, 133 

EMPIIASIS. 

The use of emphasis ... 26 

The misuse of emphasis — "And they cftc? eat " 28 

EXPLETIVES. 

"At all" 110 

NOUNS 

Relatives without any nouns to which they 

refer 35 

Singular or plural 163 

"The press" — a collective noun . . 163 

OBSCURITY. [See Ambiguity]. 

PERSPICUITY. 

What is perspicuity ? . ... 23 

The most essential quality in all writings . 26 
[See also Ambiguity]. 

PREPOSITIONS. 

" Different to ", or " Different from " . .53 
Errors in the use of the preposition "/rom" 10, 96 
" In respect of", or " With respect to " . 64 
Not " five outs and one in ", but five ins and 

one out 118 

"The cat jumped on [to] the chair" . . 44 
" Treating an exception", or " Treating of an 

exception" .... 65,108 



CONTENTS. 
TRONOUNS. 

TAQX 

Dr. Campbell on pronouns . . 33 

A difficulty of him ... .62 

A paragraph with twenty-eight nouns inter- 
vening between the pronoun and its 

noun 36, 68, 131 

" As tall as him ", " As tall as me " . .148 
41 It is /", or " It is me . 53, 143, 156, 158 

Misuse of pronouns 34 

"More thanl", or "More than me" 94, 146, 147 
" Such as me ", or " Such as 7" . . 158 
" Than who ", or " Than whom " . 147,168 
The management of pronouns is the test of a 

scholar's mastery over the language . 32 
The possessive pronoun " its " occurs only 

once in the Bible . . . 37, 131 
The date of the introduction of " its" into 

the Bible 78,137 

" The nations not so blest as thee " . .148 
The relation between nouns and pronouns, the 

great stumbling-block to most writers . 35 

"This "and "that" 170 

"Thou" and "thee", when used . 6, 126 

William Cobbett on " it " .... 36 

li Which I do" ...... 169 

PRONUNCIATION. 

The pronunciationofGreek proper names 30,74, 130 
Should the "A" in "humble" be aspirated ? 

30, 150, 160 
PUNCTUATION. 

An error in the sense occasioned by the inser- 
tion of a comma 112 

An error in the sense occasioned by the mis- 
placing of a comma . . . .115 
An error in the sense occasioned by the omis- 
sion of a comma . . . 11, 21, 106, 12G 



CONTENTS. 

SENTENCES. 

PAGR 

Dr. Blair on the construction of sentences . 17 
Dr. Campbell on the construction of sentences 17 
Lord Kames on the construction of sentences 1 7 
Other authorities on the construction of sen- 
tences 18 

"Constructing" a sentence and "construing 1 ' 

a sentence 67 

Examples of the violation of the law respect- 
ing the position of words in a sentence 

18, 19,20,128,134 

Objectionable construction of sentences . 65 

" Squinting construction " . . . 21,112 

The natural order of constructing a sentence 66 

SLANG. 

"A female" 114,138 

u An individual " . . . .65, 135 

"A party" 172 

" A tipple" 172 

"A trap" 172 

"Come to grief" . . . 28,129,171 
SPELLING. 

" Honor ", or " Honour " . . . 46,90 

"Odor", or "Odour" .... 90 
" Tenor ", or " Tenour " . . . .49 
TAUTOLOGY AND TAUTOPHONY. 

" Abated the nuisance by enacting that the 

debatable syllable ", &c. . . 118,139 
"Account for specimens, for which the author 

must not be accounted responsible " . 118 
' " A counter-roll or check on the accounts. 
From this account of the word it ap- 
pears", &c 118 

Five ins and one out . . . .118 
Three ins following each other, — " in in in " 26 
Other, other, others 118 



*xii CONTENTS. 

VERBS. 

rA~B 
" He flew upon me," and " He fell upon me" 170 
"I ain't certain", " I ain't going " . . 107 
" I need not have troubled myself " . .59 

" Stick no bills " 174 

" The next point which I notice shall be", &c. 62 
" There are three first and [there are] one 

last" 57,132 

The verb " to leave " .... 148 

The verb " to progress " . . . ; 62 
" To the former belong three, to the latter 

[belong] one " . . . . 57, 132 
" Twice one is two " or " twice one are two" 163 
"Would have been broken to pieces or [would 

have been] come to grief" 28, 129, 171 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

The power of example .... 3 
Dr. Campbell on the formation of languages 4 
The office of th e gram marian an d of the critic 5 
The influence of popular writers . . 7 
Throwing stones . . . . 8 

Persuasive teaching ..... 8 
Mending their ways — " highways ", " by- 

roads^y and "private-roads" . 12, 126 
Great things which hang up framed at railway 

stations 20, 128 

"Individuals in social intercourse " . 20, 129 
The source of mistakes . . . 29, 130 

Odious and odorous 31 

Be courteous 39 

" We do not write for idiots " . . .41 
"A most abnormal elongation of the auri jular 

appendages" .... 42,84 
Call a spade, a spade .... 42 

Falling up into a depth . ... 42 



COXTEXTS. 



xxiii 



PAGg 

"No case, abuse the plaintiff" ... 43 

Open up 50 

Alanguage that grewujoby being broughtc/ouw 51 
Neglect of the study of English at our public 

schools 53 

"An individual occurring in Shakspeare " 65, 135 
A fact " stated into prominence " . .66 

Dean's English 68 

A literary curiosity 71, 135 

The play of Hamlet with the Ghost left out 71 
Misquotation of an opponent's words . 73 

Misrepresentations 74 

"Seeing " is not always " believing " . 80, 136 
Misquotation of Scripture ... 81, 137 
"Why do you call me an ass ?'' . . . 81 
A letter to the Editor of ' The Patriot ' . 86 
Explanation respecting the charge of dis- 
courtesy 86 

Withdrawal of the charge of discourtesy . 89 
A teacher is always amenable to criticism . 90 

What is a nucleus ? 91 

" Right to a $ n ,94 

The importance of trifles . . . .93 

A groundless fear 9.) 

John Milton on rules and maxima . . 100 
An anecdote of Douglas Jerrold . < . 103 
1 The Edinburgh Review'' on ' So7-dello' . 104 

Educated persons 107 

Irishisms, — "and the like" . . .111 
" The^/ma^ ' u ' intenour"and " the Jinal l s y 

in months " 116 

"Variety not always charming . . .117 
No special training in English at our Colleges 119 
The English language compared to a temple 122 
The injurious effects of Dean Alford's essays 14 1 

Hypercriticism 151 

Irresistible progress of language . . 162 



CONTENTS. 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 



The Edinburgh Review * . . 


XXV 


The Westminster Review ' 


XXV 


The Dublin Review ' 


xxvi 


Tfte London Review ' 


xxvi 


J7ie London Quarterly Review ' 


xxvii 


77ie British and Foreign Evangelical Reviei 


o' xxvii 


The Weekly Review ' 


. xxviii 


TAe Social Science Review ' 


xxviii 


The Journal of Sacred Literature ' . 


xxix 


.7%e Phonetic Journal ' 


XXX 


7%e Record ' . . . ' . 


. xxxiv 


27te Churchman'* .... 


XXXV 


77ie Church Review ' 


xxxvi 


27ie Church Standard' . 


xxxvi 


7%e Christian Observer'' . 


. xxxvii 


TAe Christian News ' 


. xxxvii 


7%e London Christian Times ' . 


xxxviii 


7%e Nonconformist ' . . . 


xxxix 


The Patriot' ..... 


xl 


7%e English Journal of Education ' . 


xli 


7%<? Educational Times ' . 


xliii 


Jfte i)t«7y JV<?u>s ' 


xliv 


77i<? Newsman ' 


xlv 


*7%e Cambridge Lndependent Press' . 


xlv 


3%e Sunday Times ' . . . , 


xlv 


J%e Morning Advertiser ' . . 


xlvi 


7%e Court Circular' . . • 


xlvi 


Public Opinion ' . . • . 


xlvi 



%\t (Mnrtotj 0it tlje Queen's &n0\. 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 



The Edinburgh Review. 

Mr. Washington Moon amused himself by 
demonstrating that while the Dean undertook 
to instruct others, the author was himself but 
a castaway in matters of grammar. The Dean's 
style is neither particularly elegant nor correct, 
and his adversary sometimes hits him hard ; 
besides in one or two cases successfully dis- 
puting his judgments. 



The Westminster Review. 

The Dean has laid himself open to criticism 
as much for bad taste as for questionable syn- 
tax. His style of writing is awkward and 
slovenly, that of his antagonist remarkably 
terse and clear, and bearing witness to a sensi- 
tiveness of ear and taste which are glaringly 
deficient in his opponent. 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

The Dublin Review. 

Every reader of Dean Alford's ' Queen's Eng- 
' lish ' should make himself acquainted with ' The 
'Dean's English', by Mr. G. Washington Moon. 
He has exposed certain literary trips on the part 
of his antagonist, in an amusing and telling way, 
and has put together a smart little volume 
which is well worth the reading. We think 
that even practised writers may learn a lesson 
or two in the art of expressing themselves in 
their mother tongue clearly and correctly, by a 
perusal, both of the Dean's ' Stray Notes ' and 
of Mr. Moon's rejoinder. 



The London Review. 

Both Dean Alford's book on ' The Queen's 
' English', and Mr. G. Washington Moon's slash- 
ing commentary on the same, entitled c The 
1 Bean's English', in which he certainly makes 
mincemeat of a good deal of his opponent's' 
composition, are calculated to render consider- 
able service to loose thinkers, speakers, and 
writers ; and certainly both are very enter- 
taining. Mr. Moon's volume points out some 
serious errors of style ; it diminishes the pre- 
tensions of a censor who, though himself ren- 
dering good service to the purity of our tongue 
is certainly not entitled to be so loftily severe 
on others ; and it has the relish and zest of a 
sharp passage of arms. 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. xxvU 

The London Quarterly Review. 
The books which come next are those of Dean 
Alford and Mr. Moon. Last year the former 
contributed some interesting papers to { Good 
' Words' 1 on the ' Queen's English*. Like a 
liege subject, he entered the lists against the foes 
of his sovereign lady, and had already un- 
horsed some pretenders, when, lo ! another 
knight — and no carpet knight — appeared upon 
the arena, and charged the Dean ; accusing 
him of having been guilty of the very viola- 
tions of law and good taste which he had con- 
demned in others. These doughty champions 
ended their feud in peace. But Mr. Moon may 
say, " ^Yhat I have written, I have written". 

Mr. Moon knows the secrets of both the 
strength and the grace of his own tongue ; and 
should, we think, follow up the good impression 
he has produced, by publishing something that 
might help young writers to the acquisition of 
a pure and nervous style. 



The British and Foreign Evangelical Review. 
Readers will remember Dean Alford's papers 
on ' The Queen's English'' in '■Good Words', and 
the correspondence they provoked. Mr. Moon 
was one of the Dean's adversaries, and fired off 
a pamphlet against him, which called forth a 
rejoinder from the warlike Dean. But the 
oritic laid himself open to a cross fire, and got 
criticised to his heart's content. Many thought 
Mr. Moon had by no means the worst of it in 
the war of words and strife of tongues. 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

The Weekly Review. 
Dr. Alford, Dean of Canterbury, is known as 
a devout and accomplished minister — as an ex- 
cellent preacher — as the author of a critical and 
expository edition of the Greek Testament, which 
is an evidence of his industry and research, if 
not of profound scholarship — and as the writer 
of one or two fair specimens of poetical compo- 
sition. In addition to the claims which any or 
all of the foregoing may give him on public 
confidence and regard, the Dean has been de- 
sirous to assert for himself the reputation of a 
philologist and grammarian, and to place him- 
self in the position of arbiter and oracle on the 
subject of the " Queen's English". Mr. Moon 
is not disposed to bow to Dean Alford in this 
matter, and in reply to the Anglican clergy- 
man's ' Queen 1 s English 1 has come forth with 
1 The Bean's English 1 . It is a pretty generally 
received opinion that the ecclesiastic has got 
the worst of it. 

Mr. Moon not only shows (in several instances 
at least) that Dr. Alford is wrong in the ex ca- 
thedra judgments he pronounces as to certain 
popular forms of speech, but demonstrates that 
the Dean's whole papers are specimens of slip- 
shod writing, and abound with inelegancies, if 
not inaccuracies, of composition. 



The Social Science Review. 
In calmly reviewing the whole matter, We can- 
not but feel that Mr. Moon has come off the 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

Victor; and if there are some few remarks of 
a strictly personal character, that we would 
rather have seen omitted from this second edi- 
tion of his work, we must admit that it is a 
smart piece of verbal prose criticism, and is of 
more than passing interest. Mr. Moon well 
performs his self-imposed task : he evinces a 
tine sense of discernment in the niceties of lan- 
guage ; and, while severely criticising the, sen- 
tences of his opponent, shows that he himself 
knows how to write in a remarkably clear, 
terse, and vigorous style. 

"We have only to add, that we have read 
l The Dean's English' with pleasure, and we 
can recommend this carefully prepared work — 
which does credit alike to author and publisher 
— to all who are interested in the study of lan- 
guage, or desire to sharpen their wits by the 
perusal of a little Cobbett-like criticism. 



The Journal of Sacked Literature. 

The critic's calling is exceedingly difficult, and 
requires for its successful prosecution an aggre- 
gate of moral and intellectual excellencies which 
few men possess. Again, it is a very difficult 
thing to speak and to write good English ; yet 
everybody thinks he can both speak and write 
it, and most men fancy they can criticize it too. 
But the difficulty of producing unexceptionable 
English, lays open to censure almost all writers 
and speakers. Dean Alford is an example : we 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

know him to be a popular writer, and we believe 
him to be a good one ; but he is not faultless, 
and, having been tempted in an evil hour to 
turn critic, he has brought upon himself a 
deluge of criticism. Mr. Moon in particular 
overwhelms him with accusations, to some of 
which we fear he must plead guilty. We read 
Dean Alford's book on the Queen's English, 
with considerable pleasure, and gathered out of 
it some useful hints, but we felt, at the same 
time, that he employed constructions which 
were doubtful, and that his opinions did not 
always agree with what we had been led to 
regard as good usage. 

Mr. Moon has raised a far larger number of 
objections than occurred to us, and the volume 
in which he embodies them is one of the smart- 
est pieces of criticism we ever read. It is not 
only admirable as a specimen of critical style, 
but it abounds in suggestions which no man 
in his senses can undervalue : more than this, 
it is a delightful example of good writing. The 
vigour of the critic is sometimes almost liko 
severity, but we doubt whether it is ever mali- 
cious, and so we enjoy the book and learn froo' 
it at one and the same time. 



The Phonetic Journal. 

If, as some good people hold, everybody and 
everything is created, not merely for a general, 
but moreover for some specific, purpose, then we 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

might infer that the particular use to which 
Nature destined the Dean of Canterbury was to 
set himself up to lecture upon the Queen's 
English, and so to offer himself as a conspicuous 
mark, and a defenceless victim, to the scathing 
criticism and merciless exposure of Mr. George 
Washington Moon. Not for many years, have 
we seen such a brilliant and effective passage of 
arms, as is contained in the little book under 
notice, which consists principally of three letters 
addressed to Dr. Alford. To saj 7- , that the poor 
Dean is worsted in the encounter, is to say very 
little. His defeat is almost too complete. Like 
an untrained youth, in the grasp of an athlete, 
he never has even a chance. At every round, 
he is quickly thrown ; and the blows, give 
with a will, and planted with a precision and 
vigour, which no feint can elude, fall fast and 
heavily on his defenceless head. At every 
point, the Dean is confronted by his pertinacious 
and inexorable assailant, who leaves him no 
possibility of escape; or, if he does occasion- 
ally attempt a feeble defence, it only serves to 
bring down upon himself still severer punish- 
ment, until, exhausted by the encounter, he 
does that, which, for his own sake, he had 
better have done at first — makes peace with his 
adversary while yet he is in the way with him. 
To set one's self up for a teacher of English, 
pure and undefiled ; jauntily to ascend the 
rostrum, as one gifted with authority to lay 
down the whole law ; and then to be met with 
such a withering exposure of incompetence, 

C 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

with such inevitable inferences of imbecility, 
as constitute the staple of Mr. Moon's book ; 
for the physician, who gratuitously obtrudes 
his advice upon us, and vaunts his ability to 
cure our disorder, — for him to be convicted of 
labouring under a virulent form of the same 
disease, certainly this is not a pleasant position 
for a man to occupy, and we heartily commiser- 
ate the unfortunate Dean. 

Even in the fair field of criticism he is quite 
unable to cope with his skilful and alert adver- 
sary. Never was there a more conspicuous 
instance of going out to shear, and coming 
home shorn. For our own part, we would 
rather have submitted to a month's stone- 
breaking than have called down upon ourselves 
such withering sarcasms and incisive irony as 
Dr. Alford's language has so justly provoked. 

To those who are interested in speaking and 
writing good English, — and what educated per- 
son is not ? — this book is full of instruction ; 
and to those who enjoy a controversy, conducted 
with consummate skill, and in excellent taste 
by a strong man, well armed, it is such a treat 
as does not fall in one's way often during a life- 
time. Regarded in itself, and without any 
immediate reference to its object, this book 
affords a model of correct and elegant English ; 
such as it is a perfect treat to meet with, in 
these days of slip-shod writing. Perspicuous, 
compact and nervous in its construction, it is 
by no means deficient in some of the higher and 
more brilliant qualities of style ; while, for re- 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

fined sarcasm and covert irony, it lias rarely 
been equalled. "We can assure our readers 
that a pleasanter or more profitable employ- 
ment than the perusal of this book, it would be 
difficult to recommend to them. 

Many of our public writers, highly educated, 
and perhaps because they have been so educated, 
undertake English composition as if it were the 
one exceptional art which required no rules but 
the "rule of thumb. 1 ' To such, the lamentable 
fiasco of the Dean, owing to his disregard of 
rules, slwuld be a lesson, but, too probably,- 
will not. We cannot help wishing that a writer 
who is so eminently qualified as Mr. Moon to 
teach a subject which, just now, so greatly 
needs to be taught, and who illustrates so 
admirably by his example the precepts that he 
so clearly enforces, would devote himself to. 
the task of drawing up a code of rules for 
composition, such as our journalists and period- 
ical writers might appeal to, as a standard for 
correct English. We are of opinion that there 
is a crying want of such a work, that it would 
be one of the most useful and most popular 
works of the day, and that Mr. Moon, with his 
thorough mastery of the subject, with his -keen 
perception, nice judgment, and pellucid and 
elegant style, is just the person to write it. 
When a man displays peculiar aptitudes, and 
of a high order, for a given subject, we grieve, 
we almost resent it, if our natural expectations 
should remain unfulfilled. We feel that to be 
defeated of our hopes is, in some sense, to be 
c 2 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

defrauded of our rights. \Ye think we have a 
right to call upon Mr. Moon, now that he has 
once exhibited this shining talent, not to wrap 
it up again in a napkin, but to put it out to 
interest, and we have no doubt of its bringing 
him back most abundant returns. TVe enter- 
tain this opinion notwithstanding Mr. Moon's 
disclaimer that " very little can be added to 
the canons of criticism already laid down ; 
though very much may be done for the per- 
manent enriching of our language, by popular 
writers using more care as to the examples 
they set in composition, than as to the lessons 
they teach concerning it." It is precisely be- 
cause Mr. Moon teaches so well by example, 
that we would fain have him make this example 
the vehicle for the inculcation of precepts, and 
the execution of the work the best comment 
upon, and illustration of, its rules. 



The Record. 



Readers remember a scries of papers on 
1 The Queen's English 1 by Dean Alford, which 
first appeared in ' Good Words'. Immediately 
on the publication of the first paper, the learned 
Dean was inundated with epistolary comments, 
critiques, and remonstrances by volunteer critics 
from all parts of the country. The most for- 
midable of these assailants was the redoubtable 
Mr. Moon, who, after a preliminary skirmish or 
two in private, came out with a positive 
pamphlet The "Dean replied, and Mr. Moon 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

returned again and again to the charge. The 
final result is that the Dean's essays are col- 
lected into a revised volume, and Mr. Moon's 
have settled down and completed themselves 
in another. Most readers will, we believe, 
think with us that Mr. Moon comes cleanest out 
of the controversy, and has in every way the 
best of the argument. The Dean entered 
the arena with a light jaunty step, and spoke 
with the air, and in the tone, of a man whose 
decision was to be final ; all he said at first was 
quite ex cathedra, and bore the look of being 
said by one whose ipse dixit was to settle all 
strife about words : a very Daniel in the person 
of a Dean had come to judgment. But he 
speedily had to lower his pretensions. Mr. 
Moon cried, "Physician, heal th}^self. Before 
you attempt to teach us how to use the Queen's 
English, see that you know how to write it your- 
self." Coming out for wool, in fact, the Dean 
went back shorn ; rushing forth to teach, he 
went home taught. We can cordially recom- 
mend Mr. Moon's volume. It is really an able 
critique. The argument is conducted with 
admirable temper, and no reader can finish the 
volume without learning many valuable lessons 
in English composition, and some other things 
well worth knowing. 



The Churchman. 



Mr. Moon has performed a public service by 
his exposure of the errors into which men of 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

even the position of Dean Alford fall when they, 
attempt to write English. The amusing speci- 
mens of ungrammatical and slovenly sentences 
which are here collected will serve, we hope, to 
warn authors against similar offences, and we 
think Mr. Moon entitled to the gratitude of all 
lovers of our language in its purity for this ex- 
posure of the Dean's English. 



The Church Review. 

We do not wonder to see the collection of Mr. 
Washington Moon's criticisms in their third 
edition. The vigour with which he has at- 
tacked unlucky Dean Alford, and the awkward 
way in which the latter struggles and kicks 
under the infliction, are very entertaining. It 
is curious to see mistakes and inelegancies per- 
petrated in English composition for one tithe of 
which in the classical languages the offenders 
would meet with severe castigation, and for 
which, indeed, they themselves would blush 
with shame. The book is one which we should 
wish to put into the hands of our young learner 
of English, that he may be upon his guard 
against current modes of speech, and the adop- 
tion of custom as a standard. 



The Church Standard. 

There is so much in this neatly printed volume 
to command our approval, that we cannot with- 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. xxxvtt 

hold our meed of praise. There is a great deal 
of sound and trenchant criticism, and the style 
is vigorous, versatile, and epigrammatic. 



The Christian Observer. 

"We believe -with Mr. Moon, that Dean Al ford's 
English is singularly incorrect, and that the 
style of his reproofs is utterly indefensible. 



The Christian News. 

To fathers of families this book will be worth 
more than all the money which they are now * 
paying for their children's grammar. In many 
of the criticisms, the acumen displayed by Mr. 
Moon is of no common kind. His letters arc 
models of English composition, and are so full 
of animation, so sharp, lively, and trenchant, 
' that it is quite a treat to read them. He has 
demonstrated beyond dispute that the Dean of 
Canterbury, who sets himself up as a defender 
of the English language, commits the most 
culpable blunders in writing it. The formida- 
ble indictment is supported with an ability and 
acuteness we have seldom seen excelled. Mr. 
Moon writes with greater elegance, with greater * 
ease, with greater perspicuity, with greater 
vigour, and with incomparably greater accuracy, 
than his opponent. He has rendered a dry and 
forbidding subject both pleasing and profitable. 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

Though there is a remorseless exactness about 
his criticisms which makes one feel as if the 
writing of proper English were a hopeless 
attempt, there is really nothing of the true 
pedant about him any more than there is about 
the sturdy Dean himself. Both volumes are 
equally free from pedantry, and both, though 
in different senses, we can recommend to all 
who take any interest in the subject. 



The London Christian Times. 

There are but few of our readers, we presume, 
who have not already heard of this work ; but 
* we are nevertheless glad of an opportunity of 
expressing the opinion we entertain of its merits, 
and of urging the perusal of it upon all our 
friends, especially upon those who have read 
'■* The Queer? s English.'' The raciness and smart- 
ness of these criticisms invest a dry subject 
with interest. The frequent discomfiture of the * 
warlike Dean will amuse all persons, and we 
have no doubt that the contents of this book will 
enliven many a fireside during these long, dark, 
winter evenings. We shall be mistaken if 
the perusal of it does not lead, amongst the 
members of many domestic circles, to a good- 
humoured criticism, for a time, of each other's 
words and sentences. The result will be in- 
creasing correctness in the phraseology em- 
ployed ; and that the end of both the Dean and 
his critic will be in some good degree realised. 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

We have spoken of " the discomfiture of the 
" warlike Dean," and we cannot doubt, that, on 
the whole, this word fitly describes the result of 
this smart passage of arms. The Dean advanced 
with the bearing of one who deemed that he had 
no superior, if indeed, any equal. He did not 
imagine that anyone would be found daring 
enough to confront him, and to dispute the 
positions he had assumed. Mr. Moon, with 
little delay or ceremony, attacked and repulsed 
him ; caring nothing for offended dignity, or 
anything else, save the vindication of the truth. 
It is impossible not to see that he is fond of a 
brush. He goes about his work and prosecutes 
it con amove. 

Scarcely a page occurs in this small volume 
in which the Dean is not proved to have fallen 
into errors, either of grammar, construction, 
orthography, or pronunciation. Whenever he 
shall write again in defence of the Queen's 
English, he will, no doubt, write with greater 
care. He has done the public good service by 
introducing the subject ; but the advantage 
gained will be owing, in a very great degree, to 
the criticisms of his accomplished and keen- 
eyed antagonist. 



The Nonconformist. 

There is really something quite refreshing 
about Mr. Moon's IrocJiures. He must excuse 
our confessing to a slight sense of amusement, 
on a first perusal of his strictures on the Dean. 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

The spirit of hearty vehemence by which they 
were pervaded only failed to elicit our complete 
sympathy, because it seemed to us that the 
object of so vigorous an assault was after all a 
" man of straw". The faults of style, and even 
of grammatical structure, in Dean Alford's 
essays, were so obvious that a less grave mode 
of exposure would have seemed to us more 
appropriate. However, we thank Mr. Moon 
very cordially for what he has done, and have 
no hesitation in saying that he has so far suc- 
ceeded in his vindication of pure and correct, 
as opposed to lax and slipshod, English, as to 
deserve the gratitude of those who, like our- 
selves, deem our mother tongue, in all its 
restraints as well as in all its liberties, to be 
one of the most precious inheritances of Eng- 
lishmen. 



TnE Patriot. 



One would have thought that the Dean, in re- 
plying to animadversions upon his style, would 
have written with especial care j instead of this, 
his second article contains more and grosser 
faults than his first. The Dean boldly avows 
his disrespect for Lindley Murray, treats him 
with as little reverence as Colenso treats Moses, 
and forthwith proceeds, somewhat flagrantly, 
to exemplify his boasted ignorance of the whole- 
some rules according to which all of good English 
that we knew at school was flogged into us. 
Had this been the Dean's schoolboy experience 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

too, we cannot help thinking that it would have 
been better for him now. Mr. Moon gives the 
Dean a severe castigation for more than offences 
against the Queen's English ; and we are bound, 
in justice, to say that the Dean has fairly pro- 
voked it. Had he been a little less self-opin- 
ionated, and a little more respectful towards one 
who appears to have addressed him, in the first 
instance, with all gentlemanly courtesy, Mr. 
Moon would not, probably, have appeared in 
print. As it is, while we cannot altogether ex- 
tenuate the tone of Mr. Moon's second letter, 
we are compelled to say that Dean Alford's 
paper singularly lacks both the simplicity of a 
great mind and the deference of a great scholar. 
Mr. Moon is no meddling ignoramus. He is by 
no means impeccable himself ; .but, as a master 
of the English language, he is far superior to 
the Dean. 



The English Journal of Education. 
The Dean of Canterbury, apparently desirous 
of emulating a fellow-dignitary, whose hearty 
and learned labours in the mine of our lan- 
guage have opened up veins of richness few 
ever dreamed of, has published an article en- 
titled '•A Plea for the Queerts English''. The 
work we review is a reply to the Dean's 
production. We are greatly obliged to Mr. 
Moon for taking up the matter. It would have 
been a pity to have allowed the Dean to escape 



xlii EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

a castigation he deserved. We do not expect 
the physician who attends us to be exempt from 
all complaints at all times. He is mortal, and 
subject to mortal ills. But if we find hira 
giving us advice as to a course of physic or 
diet, which course he himself does not follow 
when he is similarly afflicted, we give him 
credit for either insincerity or ignorance. The 
Dean sets himself up as a healer of the sick- 
nesses brought by careless habit on the " Queen's 
" English" ; but, while pointing out those com- 
plaints and prescribing their remedies, he was 
labouring under similar maladies, whose exist- 
ence in himself he utterly -ignored, or repre- 
sented as virtues rather than otherwise, when 
Mr. Moon privately pointed them out to him. 
Such a doctor merits no confidence, and the 
exposure of his incapacity is a public good. 
In light, lively writing, strict correctness of 
diction and arrangement is not requisite. For 
our recreation reading, the stately periods of 
Robertson would be intolerable ; but Dickens's 
brilliant page, utterly ignoring stops and vio- 
lating all rules of composition, is delightfully 
fresh and grateful. Dashing leaders in the 
papers we do not expect to find reducible to 
strict principles like those laid down by Karnes 
or C ampbell. But when a man seriously pre-"" 
, tends to be writing to amend faults, his own 

style should be faultless, especially when he 
speaks in the tone of calm, self-assured supe- 
riority to vulgar error which the Dean of 
Canterbury assumes. It would occupy too 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. xliii 

much space were we to give a resume of 
the contents of Mr. Moon's clever work. 
We coincide with all his strictures on the 
Dean's article, and do not doubt that, with 
ourselves, he could have pointed to many more 
egregious blunders on the part of this new 
would-be critic. "We advise all our readers to 
see Mr. Moon's reply. Written in pure, for- 
cible, elegant, and classic English — perfect in 
composition and punctuation, and in its gentle- 
manly dignity so opposed to the slipshod, 
half-vulgar easiness of the Dean's ''Plea'' — it 
merits the attention of all students of our 
tongue, and shows that though in familiar talk 
and writing we may be as men at home — free 
and at our ease— there is not wanting amongst 
us that covert stateliness and rigid propriety 
which a weighty subject demands. 



The Educational Times. 

This is a continuation of the now somewhat 
notorious controversy between Dean Alford and 
Mr. Washington Moon, on certain points arising 
out of the publication of the Dean's * Plea for 
Hhe Queen's English ', which Mr. Moon seemo 
to have considered to be itself far from free 
from the very faults of grammar and diction it 
professed to hold up to reprobation. We 
think that in this linguistic passage of arms 
Mr. Moon has decidedly the best of it. 



xliv EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 



The Daily News. * 

Dean Alford could hardly have reflected upon 
what he was about to do when he sat down 
to write an easy, gossipy sort of paper for ' Good 
1 Words'' on the subject of common errors in 
speaking and in writing English. He certainly 
did not expect his free remarks to be so sharply 
challenged as they have been. And he finds 
himself engaged in a kind of controversy for 
which neither his natural turn of mind, nor his 
particular training has fitted him. His own 
style is at times so poor, so loose in the joints, 
so deficient in clear and sensitive perception of 
the proper force of words, that people have 
naturally wondered as to how this writer, above 
all others, could have been led to assume the 
critic's function. He sticks to it, however ; 
revises and republishes his strictures, and 
seems not to have the least idea that he has 
been beaten in the battle. Mr. Moon, there- 
fore, his foremost antagonist, gives him here 
the benefit of a third letter in answer to his 
' Plea Number Three.'' The Dean is clearly in 
error in his contempt for the grammarians. 
He might very properly enlighten them if he 
could show that they have framed some of their 
rules on too narrow grounds, but he is himself 
a warning example against the neglect of 
regular English teaching in our great schools. 
It may be hoped that he will 'improve — he cer- 
tainly ought under Mr. Moon's instructions. 



EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 



The Newsman. 

Greatly as we fear that the Dean of Canterbury 
has failed to establish his claim to be regarded 
as an authority on the Queen's English, we, by 
no means, regret the appearance of his present 
work ; and for this reason — had there never 
been * The Queen's English', there would pro- 
bably never have been 'The Dean's English' ; 
and had there never been ' The Dean's English', 
the world would have lost a very valuable con- 
tribution to English philology, and one of the 
most masterly pieces of literary criticism in 
the language. 



The Cambridge Independent Press. 

It is written with a power of sarcasm and 
criticism rarely excelled. Mr. Moon is a 
brilliant writer ; his work is full of point, 
sound in English, and deserves to be generally 
read. 



The Sunday Times. 

Mr. Moon has rendered a real service to litera- 
ture in this exposure of Dean Alford, and we 
are glad to express our recognition of the value 
of his labours. 



xlvi EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. 

The Morning Advertiser. 

It is one of the smartest pieces of prose- 
criticism we have chanced to meet with for 
many a day. 



The Court Circular. 

All who are interested in such critical discus- 
sions as are so clearly and accurately carried on 
in this little book will be, grateful to Mr. Moon 
not only for much solid instruction, but for 
much entertainment also. 



Public Opinion. 



A critical study of the English language is 
always a pleasant task ; it is here rendered 
doubly agreeable by the happy style of the 
author of ' The Dean's English \ 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH: 

A CRITICISM. 



To the Very Key. Hexey Alfoed, d.d., 
Dea^ of Canteebuey. 

Rev. Sir, 

On the publication of your ' Plea for 
' the Queen's English ' * I was surprised to 
observe inaccuracies in the structure of 
your sentences and more than one gram- 
matical error. Under ordinary circum- 
stances I should not have taken notice 
of such deviations from what is strictly 
correct in composition ; but the subject of 
your essay being the Queen's English, my 
attention was naturally drawn to the 

* ' A Plea for the Queen's English ', by the Dean 
of Canterbury : • Good Words\ March, 1863. 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

language you had employed ; and as, wjien 
I privately wrote to you respecting it, 
you justified your use of the expressions 
to which I had referred, I am desirous of 
knowing whether such expressions are 
really allowable in writings, and especially 
whether they are allowable in an essay 
which has for its object the exposure and 
correction of literary inaccuracies. I there- 
fore publish this my second letter to you ; 
and I do so to draw forth criticism upon 
the rules involved in this question ; that, 
the light of various opinions being made 
to converge upon these rules, their value 
or their worthlessness may thereby be 
manifested. I make no apology for this 
course; for when, by your violations of 
syntax and your defence of those viola- 
tions, you teach that Campbell's c Philoso- 
phy of Rhetoric ', Karnes's ' Elements of 
Criticism ', and Blair's * Lectures on Rhe- 
toric and Belles Lettres ' are no longer to 
be our guides in the study of the English 
language, no apology is needed from me 
for asking the public' whether they con- 
firm the opinion that these hitherto ac- 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 8 

knowledged authorities sliould be super- 
seded. 

To spread this enquiry widely is the 
more necessary, because, on account of 
the position which you hold, and the 
literary reputation which you enjoy, your 
modes of expression, if suffered to pass 
unchallenged, will, probably, by-and-by be 
quoted in justification of the style of other 
writers who shall presume to damage by 
example, if not by precept, the highway 
of thought over which all desire to 
travel. 

By influential example it is that Ian- The power 

of example. 

guages are moulded into whatever form 
they take ; therefore, according as example 
is for good or for evil, so will a language 
gain in strength, sweetness, precision, and 
elegance, or will become weak, harsh, 
unmeaning, and barbarous. Great writers 
may make or may mar a language. It is 
with them, and not with grammarians, 
that the responsibility rests ; for language 
is what custom makes it ; and custom is, 
has been, and always will be, more influ- 
enced by. example than by precept. 

2 



4 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

Sei'i oS'the ^ r * Campbell, speaking of the formation 
formation Q f i an g Ua g egj justly says : * — " Language 
" is purely a species of fashion, in which 
■* by the general, but tacit, consent of the 
il people of a particular state or country, 
" certain sounds come to be appropriated 
" to certain things as their signs, and 
" certain ways of inflecting and combining 
" those sounds come to be established as 
" denoting the relations which subsist 
"among the things signified. It is not 
" the business of grammar, as some critics 
" seem preposterously to imagine, to give 
u law to the fashions which regulate our 
" speech. On the contrary, from its con- 
formity to these, and from that alone, it 
" derives all its authority and value. For, 
6 ■ what is the grammar of any language ? 
" It is no other than a collection of general 
" observations methodically digested, and 
" comprising all the modes previously and 
" independently established, by which the 
" significations, derivations, and combi- 
" nations of words in that language are 

* Campbell's ' Philosophy of Rhetoric \ vol. i, book 
2. chap. 1, 2. 






THE DEANS ENGLISH. 

"ascertained. It is of no consequence 
" here to what causes originally these 
" modes or fashions owe their existence — 
" to imitation, to reflection, to affectation, 
" or to caprice ; they no sooner obtain and 
" become general than they are the laws 
" of the language, and the grammarian's 
" only business is to note, collect, and 
"methodise them." "'But,' it may be 
" said, ' if custom, which is so capricious 
" ' and unaccountable, is everything in 
" • language, of what significance is either 
" ' the grammarian or the critic ?' Of 
" considerable significance notwithstand- 
" ing ; and of most then, when they Con- 
ine themselves to their legal depart- 
" ments, and do not usurp an authority 
" that does not belong to them. The • 
" man who, in a country like ours, 
"should compile a succinct, perspicuous, 
" and faithful digest of the laws, though 
"no lawgiver, would be universally ac- 
knowledged to be a public benefactor. 
" How easy would that important branch 
"of knowledge be rendered by such a 
" work, in comparison with what it must 



C ' THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

"be, when we have nothing to have re- 
" course to, but a labyrinth of statutes, 
" reports, and opinions. - That man also 
" would be of considerable use, though 
" not in the same degree, who should 
" vigilantly attend to every illegal practice 
" that was beginning to prevail, and should 
"evince its danger by exposing its con- 
trariety to law. Of similar benefit, 
" though in a different sphere, are gram- 
"mar and criticism. In language, the 
"grammarian is properly the compiler 
" of the digest ; and the verbal critic, 
"the man w^ho seasonably notifies the 
" abuses that are creeping in. Both tend 
" to facilitate the study of the tongue to 
"strangers, and to render natives more 
"perfect in the knowledge of it, to ad- 
"vance general use into universal, and 
"to give a greater stability at least, if 
" not a permanency, to custom, that most 
"mutable thing in nature." 
jjThoujjand I have quoted these passages because 
they have direct reference to the subject 
under consideration ; for I do not find 
fault with the critical remarks in your 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. V 

essay. Many of them, it is true, are not 
new ; but most of them are good, and 
therefore will bear re-perusal ; yet, I 
must say, it was scarcely necessary to 
repeat in the March number of * Good 
1 Words', the meaning of "avocation" which 
Archbishop Whately had given in the 
same magazine in the previous August. 
And so far from its being " so. well known 
" a fact " that we reserve the singular pro- 
nouns " thou " and " thee " " entirely for 
" our addresses in prayer to Him who is 
"the highest Personality", it is not a 
fact. These pronouns are very extensively 
and very properly used in poetry, even 
when inanimate objects are addressed ; as 
is the case in the following lines from 
Coleridge's ' Address to Mont Blanc\' — 

" dread and silent Mount ! I gazed upon thee 
" Till tlwu, still present to the bodily sense, 
" Didst vanish from my thought : entranced in prayer 
" I worshipped the Invisible alone." 

However, I shall not notice your critical influence of 

popular 

remarks, for they are of only secondary writers. 
importance. Very little can be added to 



S lHE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

the canons of criticism already laid down ; 
very much may be done for the perma- 
nent enriching of our language, by pojmlar 
writers exercising more care as to the 
examples they set in composition, than as 
to the lessons they teach concerning it. 

Throwing B u t, in literature especially, it has al- 
ways been so much easier for authors to 
censure than to guide by example, and it 
has been thought by them so much better 
fun to break other authors' windows than 
to stay quietly at home taking care of 
their own, that the throwing of stones has 
long been a favourite amusement. Nor 
do we object to it, providing two things 
be granted: first, that the glass of the 
windows is so bad that the objects seen 
through it appear distorted ; and, secondly 
that in no spirit of unkindness shall the 
stones be thrown, lest you not only break 
the author's windows, but also wound the 
author himself. 

Persuasive It must be admitted that there is in 

teaching. 

your essay so little of that " sweetness of 
" the lips " which " increaseth learning ", 
that but a very small amount of good can 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

result to those whom you think to be most 
in need of improvement. You speak of 
" the vitiated and pretentious style which 
"p>asscs current in our newspapers ". You 
sneeringly say, "In a leading article of 
" ' The Times ' not long since, icas this 
" beautiful piece of slipshod English'' : then 
follows the quotation, with this remark 
appended, " Here we see faults enough be- 
i l sides the wretched violations of grammar" • 
and, " these writers are constantly doing . 
"something like this".* Then you say, 
"Sometimes the editors of our papers 

* " When it is considered that in every newspaper 
of any pretensions there are articles, letters, and 
paragraphs, from thirty or fifty different pens, there 
is not much to be astonished at in occasional blunders. 
If the Dean knew more of newspaper matters he 
would be more charitable in his criticism. Is it fair 
to expect in a leading article composed at midnight, 
against time, and carried off to the printers slip by 
slip as it is written, the same rhythmical beauty and 
accuracy of expression as in any essay elaborated by 
the labour of many days for a quarterly review ? 
Yet the English of the Dean, corrected and recor- 
rected, pales before that of ' The Times ' written per- 
haps by a wearied man at two in the morning." — 
27i« Christian, News,' Glasgow. 



10 THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 

m 
"fall, from their ignorance, into absurd 

" mistakes ". Certainly not a very happy 

arrangement of words in which to remark 

upon the "absurd mistakes" of other 

people ; for we ought to be as careful 

what our sentences suggest, as what they 

affirm ; and we are so accustomed to speak 

of people falling from a state or position, 

that your words naturally suggest the 

absurb idea of editors falling from their 

• ignorance. 

Editors fail- I submit it to the reviewers whether 

Ing from 

5ance. ign ° r " I 0111 * sentence he not altogether faulty. 
The words, " from their ignorance " should 
not come after " fall ", they should precede 
it. But, for the reason just given, the 
word " from " is objectionable in any part 
of the sentence, which would have been 
better written thus, Sometimes our editors, 
in consequence of their ignorance, fall 
into absurb mistakes. If you say that 
the defect in perspicuity is removed by 
the punctuation, I answer, in the language 
of Lord Karnes, " Punctuation may re- 
"move an ambiguity, but will never 
" produce that peculiar beauty which is 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. V 

"perceived when the sense comes out 
"dearly and distinctly by means of a 
" happy arrangement ". The same high 
authority tells us that a circumstance 
ought never to be placed between two 
capital members of a sentence ; or if it 
be so placed, the first word in the con- 
sequent member should be one that 
cannot connect it with what precedes. In 
your sentence, unfortunately, the connec- 
tion is perfect, and the suggestion of a 
ridiculous idea is the result. 

Nor is this the only instance of this " composi- 
tors with- 
kind of faulty arrangement. You say, °J|*^ e t 

"The great enemies to understanding S. punc * 

" anything printed in our language are 

" the commas. And these are inserted by 

"the compositors without the slightest 

" compunction ". I should say that the 

great enemy to our understanding these 

sentences of yours is the want of commas ; 

for though the defective position of words 

can never be compensated for by commas, 

they do frequently help to make the sense 

clearer, and would do so in this instance. 

How can we certainly know that the words 



12 THE DEAITS ENGLISH. 

" without the slightest compunction" refer 
to " inserted ?" They seem, by their order 
in the sentence, to describe the character 
of the compositors ; — they are " without 
"the slightest compunction". And then 
that word "compunction"? what an ill- 
chosen word of which to make use when 
speaking of pic?icfotation. But this is only 
on a par with what occurs in the first 
paragraph of your essay, where you speak 
of people "mending their -ways "y and in 
the very next paragraph you speak of the 
"Queen's highway", and of "by-roads" 
and "private roads". 
« Composi- But to return. Not only do you describe 

tors with- 
out any the poor compositors as beings "without 

" any compunction " ; but also as beings 

" without any mercy ". The sentence runs 

thus : " These ' shrieks ', as they have been 

"called, are scattered up and down the 

" page by compositors without any mercy". 

I have often heard of " printers devils ", 

and I imagined them to be the boys who 

assist in the press-room ; but if your 

description of compositors is true, these 

are beings of an order very little superior. 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 13 

By-the-way, while noticing these ghostly IJ^"^ » ce 
existences, I may just remark that imme- 
diately after your speaking of " things 
" without life ", you startle ns with that 
strange sentence of yours — " I will intro- 
" duce the body of my essay". Introduce 
the body ! We are prepared for much in 
these days of " sensation " writing ; and 
the "very prevalence of the fashion for that 
style of composition predisposes any one 
of a quick imagination, to believe for the 
instant that your essay on the *" Queen's 
1 English ' is about to turn into a ' Strange 
1 Story '. 

" But to be more serious " as you say in a man 

• J J losing his 

your essay, and then immediately give us™° th | r J n 
a sentence in which the grave and the 
grotesque are most incongruously blended. 
I read, " A man does not lose his mother 
" now in the papers ". I have read figur- 
ative language which spoke of lawyers 
being lost in their papers, and students 
being buried in their books ; but I never 
read of a man losing his mother in the 
papers : therefore I do not quite see what 
the adverb "noio" has to do in the 



THE LEAN'S ENGLISH. 

sentence. Ah ! stop a moment. You did 
not mean to speak of a man losing his 
mother in the papers. • I perceive by the 
context that what you intended to say 
was something of this sort : According to 
the papers, a man does not now lose his 
mother ; but that is a very different thing. 
How those little prepositions " from M and 
" in " do perplex you ; or rather, how 
greatly your misuse of them perplexes 
your readers. 

With the adverbs also you are.equally 
at fault. You say, " In all abstract cases 
." where we merely speak of numbers the 
" verb is better singular." Here the placing 
of the adverb "merely" makes it a 
limitation of the following word " speak" ; 
and the question might naturally enough 
be asked, But what if we write of num- 
bers? The adverb, being intended to 
qualify the word " numbers", should have 
been placed immediately after it. The 
sentence would then have read, "In all 
" abstract cases where we speak of num- 
" bers merely, the verb is better singular." 
So also in the sentence, " I only bring 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH, 15 

*' forward some things ", the adverb "only" 
is similarly misplaced ; for, in the follow- 
ing sentence, the words "Plenty more 
" might be said ", show that the " only " 
refers to the " some things ", and not' to 
the fact of your bringing them forward. 
The sentence should therefore have been, 
"I bring forward some things only. Plenty 
"more might be said." Again, you say 
" Still, though too many commas are bad, 
"too few are not without inconvenience 
" also." Here the, adverb " also ", in 
consequence of its position, applies to 
" inconvenience " ; and the sentence signi- 
fies that too few commas are not with- 
out inconvenience besides being bad. 
Doubtless, what you intended was, " Still, 
" though too many commas are bad, too 
" few also are not without inconvenience." 

Blair, speaking of adverbs, says, " The Dr. Biair on 

adverbs. 

" fact is, with respect to such adverbs as 
" only, wholly, at least, and the rest of that 
" tribe, that, in common discourse, the 
"tone and emphasis we use in pronoun- 
" cing them, generally serves to show their 
"reference, and to make the meaning 



16 THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 

" clear ; and hence we acquire the habit 
" of throwing them in loosely in the 
" course of a period. But in writing ", 
[and I wish you to notice this, because it 
bears upon a remark in your letter to me,] 
" But in writing ', where a man spealcs to 
" the eye and not to the ear, he ought to be 
"more accurate, and so to connect those 
"adverbs with the words which they qualify 
" as to put his meaning out of doubt upon 
" the first inspection" 
On the con- In my former letter to you, I quoted as 

struction of 

sentences, the basis of some remarks I had to make, 
the well known rule that " those parts of 
" a sentence which are most closely con- 
nected in their meaning, should be as 
li closely as possible connected in position." 
In your reply you speak of my remarks 
as " the fallacious application of a supposed 
"rule." Whether my application of the 
rule be fallacious or not, let others judge 
from this letter ; and as to whether the rule 
itself be only "a supposed rule", or whether 
it is not, on the contrary, a standard rule 
emanating from the highest authorities, let 
the following quotations decide. 



THE DEA2PS ENGLISH. 17 

I read in Karnes's * Elements of Criti- Lord 

Karnes's 

i cism\ "Words expressingthings connected option. 
"in the thought, ought to be placed as 
"near together as possible." 

I read in Campbell's ' Philosophy of Dr. camp- 
* Rhetoric', "In English and other modern °P inion - 
"languages, the speaker doth not enjoy 
" that boundless latitude which an orator 
" of Athens or of Rome enjoyed when 
" haranguing in the language of his coun- 
"try. With us, who admit very few 
" inflections, the construction, and conse- 
" quently the sense, depends almost entirely 
" on the order." 

I read in Blair's ' Lectures on Rhetoric^. Biah-'a 

opinion. 

6 and Belles Lettres\ " The relation which 
" the words, or members of a period, bear 
" to one another, cannot be pointed out 
" in English, as in Greek or Latin, by 
" means of terminations ; it is ascertained 
" only by the position in which they 
"stand. Hence a capital rule in the 
" arrangement of sentences is, that the 
" words or members most nearly related 
" should be placed in the sentence, as 
" near to each other as possible ; so as 





18 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

" to make their mutual relation clearly 

" appear." 

authorities. See a * so c Murray's Grammar^ part 2, 

in the Appendix ; likewise, ' The Ele- 

c merits of English Composition \ by David 

Irving, ll.d., chapter" 7 ; and the ' Gram- 

1 mar of Rhetorie\ by Alexander Jamieson, 

ll.d., chapter 3, book 3. 

S?S?it 80f As an illustrative example of the vio- 

iaw of posi- lation of this rule, take the following 

tion. 

sentences. "It contained", says Swift, 
" a warrant for conducting me and my 
" retinue to Traldragdubb or Trildrog- 
" drib, for it is pronounced both ways, 
" as near as I can remember, by a party 
" of ten horseP The words in italics 
must be construed with the participle 
" conducting ", but they are placed so far 
from that word, and so near the word 
" pronounced ", that at first they suggest 
a meaning perfectly ridiculous. 

Again, in the course of a certain exam- 
ination which took place in the House of 
Commons in the year 1809, Mr. Dennis 
Browne said, the witness had been 
" ordered to withdraw from the bar in 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

" consequence of being intoxicated, by 
" the motion of an honourable member." 
This remark, as might have been ex- 
pected, produced loud and general laughter. 
The speaker intended to say, that, " in 
" consequence of being intoxicated, the 
" witness, by the motion of an honourable 
" member, had been ordered to withdraw 
"from the bar." 

A similar error occurs in a work by 
Isaac D'Israeli. He meant to relate that, 
" The beaux of that day, as well as the 
" women, used the abominable art of 
"painting their faces"; but he writes, 
"The beaux of that day used the abo- 
"minable art of painting their faces, as 
" well as the women " ! 

In a recent number of a fashionable 
morning paper, there is a paragraph headed 
1 A Dangerous Cow', of which it is said not 
only that it tossed several persons, but that 
" it plunged and tossed about the street in 
" a formidable manner". It must indeed 
have been a dangerous cow. 

In your essay, you say, " I remember 
" when the French band of the ' Guides ' 
C 2 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

" were in this country, reading in the 
" 'Illustrated JVeios ' ". Were the French- 
men, when in this country, reading in the 
' Illustrated JVews ' f or did you mean that 
you remembered reading in the 'Illustrated 
l JSTeics\ when the band of the French 
Guides, &c. ? 

You also say, "It is not so much of 
" the great highway itself of the Queen's 
'• English that I would now speak, as of 
" some of the laws of the road ; the by- 
" rules, to compare small things with 
" great, which hang up framed at the 
" various stations ". What are the great 
things which hang up framed at the 
various stations ? If you meant that 
the by-rules hang up framed at the 
various stations, the sentence would have 
been better thus, " the laws of the road ; 
" or, to compare small things with great, 
" the by-rules which hang up framed at 
" the various stations ". 

So, too, in that sentence which intro- 
duces the body of your essay, you speak of 
" the reluctance which we in modern 
4< Europe have to giving any prominence 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 21 

" to the personality of single individuals 
"in social intercourse"; and yet it was 
evidently not of single individuals in 
social intercourse that you intended to 
speak, but of giving, in social inter- 
course, any prominence to the person- 
ality of single individuals. Your lan- 
guage expresses a meaning different from 
that which was intended : just as does 
Goldsmith's language when, in the fol- 
lowing tautological sentence, he says, 
" The Greeks, fearing to be surrounded 
" on all sides, wheeled about and halted, % 
" with the river on their backs." Talk 
of Baron Munchausen ! Why, here was 
an army of Munchausens. They " wheeled 
" about and halted, loith the river on their 
" backs:' 

Once more, you say, "When I hear a a sentence 

with a 

" person use a queer expression, or pro- squinting 

"nounce a name in reading differently tion * 

" from his neighbours, " it always goes 

" down, in my estimate of him, with a 

" minus sign before it — stands on the side 

" of deficit, not of credit." Poor fellow ! 

So he falls in your estimation, merely 



22 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

because when " reading differently from 
"his neighbours," you hear him "pro- 
" nounce a name ". Would you have him 
pass over the names without pronouncing 
them? The fact is, that in the very 
words in which you censure a small fault 
of another person, you expose for censure 
a greater fault of your own. The pro- 
•■ nunciation of proper names is a subject 
1 upon which philologists are not in every 
case unanimous ; and to, differ where 
the wise are not agreed, if it be a fault, 
cannot be a great fault; but to publish 
a sentence like yours, having in it a 
clause with what the French call a 
"squinting construction",* is to commit 
a fault such as no one would expect to 
find in 'A Plea for the Queen's English'. 
The words " in reading ", look tvjo icays at 
once, and may be construed either with the 
words which precede, or with those which 
follow. We mayunderstand you to say, 
" pronounce a name in reading "; or, " in 
" reading differently from his neighbours". 

* " Construction loucha ". 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 23 

A more striking example of this ludicrous 
error could scarcely have been given. 

Dr. Campbell, in speaking- of similar P r - Cam P- 
r ' l ° beii on con- 

instances of bad arrangement, says, " In iSKity. 
" all the above instances there is what 
"may be justly termed a constructive 
" ambiguity ; that is, the words are so 
" disposed in point of order, as to render 
" them really ambiguous, if, in that con- 
" struction which the expression first sug- 
" gests any meaning were exhibited. As 
" this is not the case, the faulty order of 
" the words cannot properly be considered 
" as rendering the sentence ambiguous, 
" but obscure. It may indeed be argued 
u that, in these and the like examples, 
" the least reflection in the reader will 
" quickly remove the obscurity. But 
" why is there any obscurity to be re- 
" moved ? Or why does the writer require 
"more attention from the reader, or the 
" speaker from the hearer, than is abso- 
" lutely necessary ? It ought to be re- 
" membered, that whatever application we 
" must give to the words, is, in fact, so 
"much deducted from what we owe to 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

" the sentiments. Besides, the effort that 
"is exerted in a very close attention to 
" the language, always weakens the effect 
" which the thoughts were intended to 
" produce in the mind. ' By perspicuity', 
" as Quintillian justly observes, ' care is 
" ' taken, not that the hearer may under- 
" ■ stand, if he will, but that he must 
" c understand, whether he will or not.'* 
" Perspicuity, originally and properly, 
" implies transparency, such as may be 
" ascribed to air, glass, water, or any 
" other medium through which material 
" objects are viewed. From this original 
" and proper sense it has been meta- 
phorically applied to language; this 
" being, as it were, the medium through 
" which we perceive the notions and 
" sentiments of a speaker. Now, in cor- 
"poreal things, if the medium through 
" which w T e look at any object is per- 
fectly transparent, our whole attention 
" is fixed on the object ; we are scarcely 
" sensible that there is a medium which 
"intervenes, and we can hardly be said 
* l Instit \ lib. viii. cap. 2. 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 

"to perceive it. But if there is any 
* flaw in the medium, if we see through 
u it but dimly, if the object is imper- 
u fectly represented, or if we know it to 
"be misrepresented, our attention is ini- 
" mediately taken off the object to the 
" medium. We are then anxious to dis- 
a cover the cause, either of the dim and 
" confused representation, or of the niis- 
" representation, of things which it ex- 
" hibits, that so the defect in vision may 
" be supplied by judgment. The case of 
" language is precisely similar. A dis- 
u course, then, excels in perspicuity when 
" the subject engrosses the attention of 
" the hearer, and the diction is so little 
" minded by him, that he can scarcely 
"be said to be conscious it is through 
" this medium he sees into the speaker's 
" thoughts. On the contrary, the least 
" obscurity, ambiguity, or confusion in the 
" style, instantly removes the attention 
" from the sentiment to the expression, 
" and the hearer endeavours, by the aid of 
" reflection, to correct the imperfections 
" of the speaker's language." 



26 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

rerspicuity. j n contending for the law of position 
as laid down by Lord Karnes, Dr. Camp- 
bell, and others, I do so on ' the ground 
that the observance of this law contri 
butes to that most essential quality in 
all writings, — perspicuity; and although 
I would not on any account wish to see 
all sentences constructed on one uniform 
plan, I maintain that the law of position 
must never be violated when such violation 
would in any way obscure the meaning. Let 
your meaning still be obvious, and you 
may vary your mode of expression as you 
please ; and your language will be the 
richer for the variation. Let your mean- 
ing be obscure, and no grace of diction, 
nor any music of a well-turned period, 
will make amends to your readers for 
their being liable to misunderstand you. 

Emphasis. In noticing my remarks upon this part 
of the subject, you say, "The fact is, 
"the rules of emphasis come in, in in- 
" terruption of your supposed general law 
" of position." Passing over the inelegant 
stuttering, tc in, in, in," in this sentence, 
I rer>V to v our observation. The rules 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

of emphasis, and what you are pleased 
to call " the supposed general law of 
"position", are entirely independent of 
each other, and can no more clash than 
two parallel lines can meet. The rules 
of emphasis do not come " in r in in- 
u terruj^tion of the general law of position." 
A sentence ought, under all circumstances, 
to be constructed accurately, whatever 
may chance to be the emphasis with 
which it will be read. A faulty construc- 
tion may be made intelligible by emphasis, 
but no dependence on emphasis will 
justify a faulty construction. Besides, 
if the sentence is ambiguous, how will 
emphasis assist the reader to the author's 
meaning ? "Where shall he apply the 
emphasis? He must comprehend what 
is ambiguous, in order that what is am- 
biguous may by him be comprehended, 
which is an absurdity. 

Emphasis may be very useful to me 
in explaining to you my own meaning, or, 
in explaining another's meaning which I 
may understand ; but it can be of no use 
to me to explain that which I do not 



28 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

understand. When to correctness of posi- 
tion is added justness of emphasis, your 
words will be weighty ; but when the 
first of these qualities is wanting, not the 
thunder of a Boanerges will compensate 
for the deficiency. 
"And tiiey An amusinor instance of wronoj emphasis 

did eat:' ... 

in reading the Scriptures was thus given 
in a recent number of ' Tlie Header \ " A 
" clergyman, in the course of the church 
" service, coming to verses 24 and 25 of 
" 1 Sam. xxviii, which describe how Saul, 
" who had been abstaining from food in 
" the depth of his grief, was at last 
" persuaded to eat, read them thus : ' And 
" ' the woman had a fat calf in the house ; 
" 'and she hasted, and killed it, and took 
" ■ flour, and kneaded it, and did bake 
" ' unleavened bread thereof : and she 
"'brought it before Saul, and before his 
" ' servants ; and they did eat ' ". 
unaiioy- Continuing my review of your essay, 
I notice that it is said of a traveller on 
the Queen's highway, "He bowls along 
"it with ease in a vehicle which a few 
" centuries asco would have been broken 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 29 

cc to pieces in a deep rut, or come to grief 
" in a bottomless swamp." There being 
here no words immediately before " come", 
to indicate in what tense that verb is, I 
have to turn back to find the tense, and 
am obliged to read the sentence thus, 
" would have been broken to pieces in a 
" deep rut, or {would have been) come to 
" grief in a bottomless swamp " ; for, a part 
of a complex tense means nothing with- 
out the rest of the tense ; therefore, the 
rest of the tense ought always to be found 
in the sentence. Nor is it allowable, as 
in your sentence, to take part of the tense 
of a passive verb to eke out the meaning 
of an active verb given without any tense 
whatever. 
Further on, I find you speaking of The source 

of mistakes. 

" that fertile source of mistakes among 
" our clergy, the mispronunciation of 
" Scripture proper names ". It is not 
the " mispronunciation of Scripture pro- 
" per names " which is the source of mis- 
takes ; the mispronunciation of Scripture 
proper names constitutes the mistakes 
themselves of which you are speaking; 



30 THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 

and a thing cannot at the same time be 
a source, and that which flows from it. It 
appears that what you intended to speak 
of was "that fertile source of mistakes 
" among our clergy, their ignorance of 
" Scripture proper names, the mispronun- 
" ciation of which is quite inexcusable." 
Pronuncia- Speaking on this subject, I may re- 
Greek mark that, as you so strongly advocate 

proper 

names. our following the Greeks in the pro- 
nunciation of their proper names, I hope 
you will be consistent and never again 
in reading the Lessons, call those ancient 
cities Samaria and Philadelphia otherwise 
than Samaria and Philadelphia. 

should the I was much amused by your attempt 
to set up the Church ' Prayer Booh ' as 
an authority for the aspiration of the 
"A" in the word "humble"; when, on 
the first page of the ' Homing Prayer? 
we are exhorted to confess our sins " with 
" ail humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient 
" heart ". As for the argument which 
you base upon tne alliterative style of the 
'■Prayer Booh''; that argument proves 
too much, to be in your favour ; for if, 



'* humble " 
be aspi- 
rated? 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. V. 

because we find the words " humble " and 
"hearty" following each other, we are 
therefore to believe that it was the in- 
tention of the compilers of our beautiful 
ritual that we should aspirate the "h " in 
"humble", as in "hearty"/ what was the 
intention of the compilers when, in the 
supplication for the Queen, they required 
us to pray that we " may faithfully serve, 
" honour, and humbly obey her " ? 
" Towards the end of your essay you say, "Odious" 
"Entail is another poor injured verb. "odorous." 
" Nothing ever leads to anything as * a 
" consequence, or brings it about, but it 
" always entails it. This smells strong of 
" the lawyer'3 clerk ". It was a very 
proper expression which Horace made use 
of when, speaking of over-laboured com- 
positions, he said that they smelt of the 
lamp ; but it is scarcely a fit expression 
which you employ, when, speaking of a 
certain word, you say, this smells strong 
of the lawyer's clerk. Lawyers or their 
clerks may be odious to you, but that does 
not give you the right to use an expression 
which implies that they are odorous. 



language. 



32 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

The test j us t as we mav k now by the way in 

a scholar s j j j 

overtSe which a man deals with the small trials 
of life, how far he has attained a mastery 
over himself; so may we know by the 
way in which a writer deals with the 
small parts of speech, how far he has at- 
tained a mastery over the language. Let 
us see therefore how you manage the 
pronouns. 

I begin by noticing a remark which, in 
vour letter to me, has -reference to this 
part of the subject. You say, respecting 
my criticism on your essay, " Set to work 
'* in the same way with our English ver- 
" sion of the Bible, and what work you 
" would make of it ?' ! To this I reply : 
Our English version of the Bible is ac- 
knowledged to be, on the whole, excellent, 
whether considered with respect to its 
faithfulness to the originals, or* with re- 
spect to its purity and elegance of lan- 
guage. Its doctrines being divine, are, 
like their Author, perfect ; but the trans- 
lation, being human, is frequently obscure. 
You bid me look at the " he " and " him " 
in Luke xix, 3, 4, 5. You surely do not 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

defend the construction of these sentences ? 
See what Dr. Campbell says on this sub- 
ject, in his ' Philosophy of Rhetoric ', 
book ii. chap. 6. " It is easy to conceive 
" that, in numberless instances, the pro- 
noun * he ' will be ambiguous, when two 
" or more males happen to be mentioned 
" in the same clause of a sentence. In 
" such a case we ought always either to 
" give another turn to the expression, or 
u to use the noun itself, and not the pro- 
" noun ; for when the repetition of a word 
" is necessary it is not offensive. The 
"translators of the Bible have often ju- 
" diciously used this method ; I say 
"judiciously, because, though the other 
" method is on some occasions preferable, 
" yet by attempting the other, they would 
" have run a much greater risk of destroy- 
ing that beautiful simplicity which is an 
"eminent characteristic of Holy Writ. 
" I shall take an instance from the speech 
" of Judah to his brother Joseph in 
" Egypt. ' We said to my lord, The lad 
" l cannot leave his father, for if he should 

D 



o+ THE DEAN'S ENGLISH 

" 'leave his father, his father would die.' 
"Gen. xliv, 22. The words 'his father' 
" are, in this short verse, thrice repeated, 
" and yet are not disagreeable, as they 
'- contribute to perspicuity. Had the 
"last part of the sentence run thus, 
'•'if he should leave his father he 
" ' would die ', it would not have ap- 
peared from the expression, whether 
"it were the child or the parent that 
" would die ". 

Misuse of ATi • • -i-i 

pronouns. A little attention to this matter would 
have saved you from publishing such a 
paragraph as the following; — " Two other 
" words occur to me which are very com- 
" monly mangled by our clergy. One of 
" these is ' covetous ' and its substantive 
" ' covetousness \ I hope some who read 
" these lines' will be induced to leave oif 
" pronouncing them ' covetious ' and ' cove- 
" ' tiousness '. I can assure them that 
" when they do thus call them, one at 
"least of their hearers has his appre- 
" ciation of their teaching disturbed ".* 

* The italics are not the Dean's. 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. S3 

You have so confusedly used your pro- 
nouns in the above paragraph, that it 
may be construed in ten thousand different 

m 

ways. 

In some sentences your pronouns have Nouna - 
actually no nouns to which they apply. 
For example, on page 192, " That nation ". 
What nation ? You have not spoken of 
any nation whatever. You have spoken 
of " the national mind ", " the • national 
" speech ", and " national simplicity ", 
things pertaining to a nation, but have 
not spoken of a nation itself. So also, on 
page 195, "a journal published 'by these 
w people ". By what people ? "Where is 
the noun to which this relative pro- 
noun refers? In your head it may 
have been, but it certainly is not in 
your essay. 

The relation between nouns and pro- 
nouns is a great stumbling-block to most 
writers. The following sentence occurs in 
Hallam's ' literature of Europe ' .* — " ]STo . 
" one as yet had exhibited the structure of 
" the human kidneys, Yesalius having 
D 2 



86 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

" only examined them in dogs ". Human 
kidneys in dogs ! * 

In a memoir of John Ley den, the 
shepherd boy, in ' Small Beginnings / or, 
'the Way to Get On\ there is, on page 
104, the following passage: — "The Pro- 
" fessor soon perceived, however, that the 
" intellectual qualities of the youth were 
" superior to those of his raiment ". 
Intellectual qualities of raiment! 
a pronoun In your essay, on page 1-96, you say, " I 

too widely 

separated " have known cases where it has been 

from its 

" thoroughly eradicated ". " When I hear 
" a man gets to his its ", says Wm. Cob- 
bett, "I tremble for him". Now just 
read backwards with me, and let us see 
how many singular neuter nouns inter- 
vene before we come to the one to which 
your pronoun " it " belongs. " A tipple ", 
" a storm ", " the charitable explanation ", 
" the well-known infirmity ", " the way ", 
" ale ", " an apology ", " the consterna- 
tion", "their appearance", "dinner", 
" the house ", " the following incident ", 
* Breen's ' Modern English Literature \ 



noun. 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 87 

his ed ", " a neighbouring table ", IC a 
South-Eastern train ", " a Great West- 
ern ", " Reading ", " a refreshment- 
room ", " the /^atmosphere ", " the hair ", 
the air ", " the cholera ", " his opinion ", 
this vulgarism ", " energy ", " self-re- 
spect", " perception ", " intelligence ", 
habit ". Here we have it at last. Only 
twenty-eight nouns intervening between 
the pronoun "«V, and the noun " habit " 
to which it refers ! I could give addi- 
tional examples from your essay, but 
surely this is enough, to show that the 
schoolmaster is needed by other people 
besides the Directors of the Great Western 
and South-Eastern railways. 

One word in conclusion. You make 
the assertion that the possessive pronoun 
" its " " never occurs in the English ver- 
" sion of the Bible ". It is to be regretted 
that you have spoken so positively on 
this subject. Probably the knowledge of 
our translators' faithfulness to the original 
text, and the fact of there being in 
Hebrew no neuter, may have led yoa 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

and others into this error; but look at 
Leviticus xxv, 5, "That which groweth 
" of its own accord ", and you will see that 
" its ", the possessive, of " it ", does occur 
" in the English version of the Bible ". 

I am, Rev. Sir, 

Yours most respectfully, 

G. WASHINGTON MOON". 



London, April 1863 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 



CRITICISM No. II; 

In Reply to the Dean or Canterbury's 
Rejoinder. 

What ! is it possible that the Dean of l ^S mm 
Canterbury can have so forgotten the 
Scriptural precept " Be courteous ", as to 
speak, in a public meeting, in such a 
manner about an absent antagonist, that 
the language is condemned by the assem- 
bly, and the Dean is censured by the 
public press ? Your own county paper, 
Reverend Sir, ''The South-Eastern Gazette* 
in giving a report of your second lecture* 
in St. George's Hall, Canterbury, makes 
the following observations : " Mr. G. W. 

* Subsequently published in ( Good. Words \ 
June, 1863. 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

a Moon issued a pamphlet controverting 
"many of the points advanced by the 
"Dean, and showing that the reverend 
"gentleman himself had been guilty of 
"the very violations of good English 
" which he had so strongly condemned in 
" others. The greater portion of the 
" Dean's lecture on Monday evening was 
" devoted to an examination of the state- 
" ments made by Mr. Moon, and to a 
" defence of the language employed by 
" the Dean in his former lecture. Opin- 
ions differ as to the success of the 
" reverend gentleman, many of his posi- 
" tions being called in question ; while 
" the epithets which he did not hesitate 
" to use in speaking of an antagonist 
"possessing some acquaintance with the 
" English language, were generally con- 
" demned. These might and ought to 
" have been avoided, especially by one 
" whose precepts and example have their 
" influence, for good or for harm, upon 
" the society in which he moves. 4 Get 
" 'wisdom, get understanding , and forget it 
iil not\ is a text that even the Dean of 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. I] 

" Canterbury might ponder over with 
" advantage ". 

What, too, is to be said of that language " Idiot8 »" 
which, even in your calmer moments, 
you have not scrupled to apply to me? 
You had, in your former essay,* worded 
a sentence so strangely, that it suggested 
a meaning perfectly ludicrous. I called 
your attention to this, first in a private 
letter, and afterwards in a pamphlet,f 
and, in your c Plea for the Queen's Eng- 
' lish, JVo.- II ', you indignantly exclaim, 
in reference to my remarks, " We do not 
u write for Idiots ". Thank you for your 
politeness; I can make all excuses for 
hasty words spoken in unguarded mo- 
ments ; but when a gentleman deliber- 
ately uses such expressions in print, he 
shows, by his complacent self-sufficiency, 
how much need he has to remember that 
it is possible to be worse than even an 
idiot. " Seest thou a man wise in his own 

* ' A Plea for the Queen's English \ — * Good 
'Words', March, 1863. 

f The previous letter is a re-publication of that 
pamphlet. 



& THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

* c conceit ? there is more hope of a fool 
" than of him ". Prov. xxvi, 12. 
Twmai Continuing your remarks on my criti- 
of°tfeaS?i- cisms, you say, " It must require, to speak 
dages?^ 611 " in the genteel language which some of 
" my correspondents uphold, a most abnor- 
. " mat elongation of the auricular appen- 
" dages, for a reader to have suggested to 
" his mind a fall from the sublime height 
" of ignorance down into the depth of a 
"mistake." I spoke of editors falling 
into mistakes : it remained for the Dean 
of Canterbury to add, that they fell down 
into the depth of a mistake. You say you 
do not write for idiots ; who else would 
imagine that it were possible to fall up 
into a depth ? Reverting to your expres- 
sion, "abnormal elongation of the auricular 
ii appe?idages", — you recommended us, in 
your former essay, to use plainness of 
language, and when we mean a spade, to 
say so, and not call it " a well-known ob- 
" long instrument of manual husbandry ". 
I wonder you did not follow your own 
teaching, and, in plain language, call me 
an ass ; but I suppose you considered the 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 43 

language plain enough, and certainly it is : 
there can be no doubt as to your meaning. 
I must leave it to the public to decide 
whether I have deserved such a distin- 
guished title. Recipients of honours do 
not generally trouble themselves about 
merit ; but, as I am very jealous for the 
character of him who has thus flatteringly 
distinguished me; and as some captious 
persons may call in question his right to 
confer the title of ass ; I shall endeavour, 
in the following pages, to silence for ever 
all cavillers, and to prove, to demonstra- 
tion, that he did not give away that 
which did not belong to him. 

Of my former letter, you say that, "No case: 

J / J . abuse the 

when you first looked it through, it re- P laintiff -" 

minded you of the old story of the attor- 
ney's endorsement of the brief, — "No 
"case: abuse the Plaintiff": for, the 
objections brought by me against the 
matter of your essay, are very few 
and by no means weighty; as I have 
spent almost all my labour in criticisms 
on your style and sentences. Precisely! 
I wished to show, by your own writings, 



44 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

that so. far were you from being competent 
to teach others English composition, that 
you had need yourself to study its first prin- 
ciples ; but there is no abuse whatever in 
that letter : you had no precedent in my 
remarks for your language ; and as for my 
having made but few objections to your 
essay, I will at once give you convincing 
proof that it was not because I had no 
more objections to make. 

I had written the following paragraph 
before your second essay was published ; 
and although, in that essay, you defend 
the statement you had previously made, I 
conceive that you have not by any means 
established your position. 
How the cat I venture to assert that, what we sav 

jumps. ' J 

figuratively of some not over-wise people, 
we may say literally of you, — "You do 
"not know how the cat jumps"; for, 
what do you tell us ? You tell us that it 
is wrong to say, " The cat jumped on to the 
" chair ", the " to ", you remark, " being 
" wholly unneeded and never used by any 
" careful writer or speaker." With all due 
deference to such a high authority on such 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH 

a very important matter, I beg leave to 
observe that, when we say, " The cat 
"jumped on to the chair ", we mean that 
the cat jumped from somewhere else to 
the chair, and alighted on it ; but when 
we say, i: The cat jumped on the chair", 
we mean that the cat was on the chair 
already, and that, while there, she jumped. 
The circumstances are entirely different ; 
and according to the difference in the 
circumstances, so should there be a dif- 
ference in the language used to describe 
them respectively. It is evident that in 
watching the antics of puss, you received 
an impulse from her movements, and you 
yourself jumped — to a wrong conclusion. M 

. * The 'Edinburgh Review 1 , after objecting to 
some of my remarks as hypercritical, says, " It is not 
" meant that all Mr. Moon's comments are of this 
" kind. The Dean's style is neither particularly ele- 
" gant nor correct, and his adversary sometimes hits 
" him hard ; besides in one or two cases successfully 
"disputing his judgments. On the important ques- 
" tion (for instance) whether we should say the cat 
"jumped l on to the chair', or ' on the chair \ we 
" must vote against the Dean, who unjustly condemns 
" the former expression." 



18 THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 

''fevor"ic Again, you say, "I pass on now to 
" spelling, on which I have one or two 
"remarks to make. The first shall be, 
" on the trick now so universal " [' so uni- 
' versal ' ! as if universality admitted of 
comparison] " across the Atlantic, and be- 
" coming in some quarters common among 
" us in England, of leaving out the c u ' in 
the termination { our^ '/ writing honor, 
" favor, neighbor, Savior, <£c. Now the ob- 
jection to this is not only that it makes 
" very ugly words, totally unlike anything 
" in the English language before, but that 
" it obliterates all trace of the derivation 
" and history of the word." **** "The 
" late Archdeacon Hare, in an article on 
" English orthography in the 'Philological 
" l Museum ', some years ago, expressed a 
" hope that c such abominations as honor 
" { and favor would henceforth be confined 
" ' to the cards of the great vulgar.' There 
" we still see them, and in books printed 
" in America ; and while we are quite 
" contented to leave our fashionable friends 
" in such company, I hope we may none 
" of us be tempted to join it." I will tell 



THE DEAISTS ENGLISH. 47 

you where else these M abominations " may- 
be found, besides being found li on the 
f cards of the great vulgar ". They may 
be found in a volume of poems by Henry 
Alford, Dean of Canterbury ; a volume 
published, not in America, but in this 
country, by Rivingtons of Pall Mall. 
The following is a specimen taken from 
his " Recent Poems". Two verses will 
suffice. 

RECENT POEMS. 

A WISH. 

" Would it were mine, amidst the changes 
" Through which our varied lifetime ranges, 
" To live on Providence's bounty 
" Down in some favored western county. 



" There may I dwell with those who love me ; 
" And when the earth shall close above me, 
" My memory leave a lasting savor 
" Of grace divine, and human favor." 

It is true that there is a preface to the 
volume, and that it accounts for the spell- 
ing of such words, by informing us that 
many of the poems have been published 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

in America ; but that is no justification of 
your retaining the Transatlantic spelling 
which you condemn. I guess you do not 
mean to imply that it is with poems as 
with people, — i.e., that a temporary resi- 
dence abroad occasions them to acquire 
habits of pronunciation, &c, not easily 
thrown off on a return to the mother 
country : and yet, if this be not what the 
preface means ; pray, what does it mean ? 
Perhaps, as mountain travellers brand cer- 
tain words on their alpenstocks, to show 
the height that has been attained by those 
using them, so you have thought well to 
favor us with this savor of Americanisms, 
to show us that your poems have had the 
honor of being republished on the other 
side of the Atlantic. 

It appears to me that the preface serves 
only to make matters worse ; for it shows 
that the objectionable form of orthography 
is retained with your knowledge and your 
sanction, for I have quoted from the 
" Third Edition:" How is this ? You 
say that the spelling in question should 
be confined to the cards of "the great 



THE DEA2PS ENGLISH. 40 

" vulgar "/ . and you yovrsHf adopt that 
very spelling ! 
Before quitting the subject of the spell-" Tenor" 

*■ a J l and "bass". 

ing of words of the above class, I beg 
leave to say that although there are, in our 
language, certain words ending in " our ", 
which, as we have seen, ra*e sometimes 
spelt with "or" only; as honor, favor, 
&c, without interference with the sense, 
honor being still the same as honour, and 
favor the same as favoz^r ; there is one 
word of this class, the meaning of which 
changes with the change of spelling ; 
namely, the word tenour, which, with the 
" u ", means continuity of state ; as in 
£ Gray's Elegy\ — 

" Along the cool sequestered vale of life 

" They kept the noiseless tenour of their way :" 

but without the " u ", signifies a certain 
clef in music. This distinction has been 
very properly noticed by Dr. Nugent in 
his ''English and French Dictionary'*: 
there the word stands thus : — 

" Tenor, alio, m. 

** Tenour, manihe % f." 

B 



60 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

but you, after lecturing us upon the im- 
propriety of leaving out the "w" in 
"honour", and in "favour", although the 
omission in these words makes no altera- 
tion in the sense, yourself leave the " u " 
out of "tenour", and speak, on page 429, 
of the " tenor " of your essay ! If this be 
not straining at gnats and swallowing a 
camel, I do not know what is. What 
with the tenor of your essay, and the bass, 
or baseness, of your English, you certainly 
are fiddling for us a pretty tune. It 
is to be hoped that if we do not dance 
quite correctly, to your new music, you 
will take into consideration the extreme 
difficulty we have to understand the con- 
tradictory instructions we have received. 
Open up". Again, you censure the editors of news- 
papers for using the exjiression " open up ", 
and you say, " what it means more than 
" open would mean, I never could dis- 
" cover ". Permit me to say that, if you 
look at home, you will find in your own 
periodical, in the identical number of it 
containing this remark of yours, two 
Doctors of Divinity using the very ex- 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH fl 

press-ion you condemn ; a third Doctor of 
Divinity using an expression very similar ; 
and a fourth, yourself, using an expression 
which, under the circumstances, is deserv- 
ing of severe censure. To begin with the 
Editor ; the Rev. Norman Macleod, d.d., 
says, on page 204, " He opens up in the 
" parched desert a well that refreshes us ". 
The Rev. John Caird, d.d., says, on page 
237, "Now these considerations may open 
" up to us one view of the expediency of 
" Christ's departure ". The Rev. Thomas 
Guthrie, d.d., says, on page 163, "the 
"past, with its sin and folly, rose up before 
" his eyes ". I suppose you would say ? 
" What rose up means more than rose would 
" mean I cannot discover". Probably not, 
but just tell us what you mean by saying, 
on page 197, "Even so the language grew •« Grew up" 
"up; its nerve, and vigour, and honesty, 
" and toil, mainly brought down to us in 
"native Saxon terms". If the word up 
be redundant in the quoted sentences of 
the other learned Doctors, what shall we 
say of it in your own f In their expres- 
sions there is sense ; so, too, is there in 
E 2 



62 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

your expression ; but it is a kind of sense 
Lest described by the word nonsense. The 
language grew up by being brought dozen/ 
Sure, it must have been the Irish language 
that your honour was spiking of. 
tiie g Itud° f of ^ ow f° r your reply to my letter. In 
Ea-hsii. condemnation of your wretched English, 
I had cited some of the highest authori- 
ties ;* and you coolly say, " I must freely 
"acknowledge to Mr. Moon, that not one 
"of the gentlemen whom he has named 
" has, ever been my guide, in whatever 
" study of the English language I may 
"have accomplished, or in what little I 
" may have ventured to write in that lan- 
guage". "I have a very strong per- 
" suasion that common sense, ordinary 
" observation, and the prevailing usage of 
" the English people, are quite as good 
"guides in the matter of the arrangement 
" of sentences, as [are] the rules laid down 
t' by rhetoricians and grammarians." Thus 
we come to the actual truth of the matter. 
It appears that you really have never 

* Dr. Campbell, Lord Kames, Hugh Blair, Lindley 
Murray, and others. 



. THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 53 

made the English language your study ! 

All that you know about it is what you 

have picked up by " ordinary observa- 

" tion " ;* and the result is, that you 

tell us it is correct to say, " He &iSnme» er 

" wiser than me "yf and that you speak 

of u a decided weak point'''' in a man's ^ k dec,ded 

character! You must have a decidedly point " 

weak point in your own character, to set 

up yourself as a teacher of the English 

language, when the only credentials of 

qualification that you can produce are 

such sentences as these. 

You sneer at " Americanisms ", but you 
would never find an educated American 
who would venture to say, "It is me", 
for "It is I"; or, "It is him", tot "It 
11 is he" ; or, « different to ", for " different 
" from ". And nowhere are the use and the 

* "It is notorious that at our public schools 
" every boy has been left to pick up his English 
" where and how he could." — Harrison f On t/ie 
* English Language \ preface, p. v. 

f This subject was ably commented on by a writer 
in the 'English Churchman\ and by a writer in 
the ' Glasgow Christian Neics\~ See Appendix. 



others " 



54 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

omission of the "h" as an aspirate, so clearly 
distinguished as in the United States.* 
ruTe'ofaii With regard to the purport of your 
second essay on the Queen's English, 
it is, as I expected it would be, chiefly a 
condemnation of my former letter ; but 
you very carefully avoid those particular 
errors which I exposed ; such as, "Some- 
a times the editors of our papers fall, from 
" their ignorance, into absurd mistakes " ; 
and, "Aman does not lose His mother noio 
" in the papers ". There are, however, in 
your second essay, some very strange speci- 
mens of Queen's English. You say, " The 
" one rule of all others, which he cites ". 
Now as, in defence of your particular 
views, you appeal so largely to common 
sense, let me ask, in the name of that 
common sense, How can one thing be 
another thing ? How can one rule be of all 
other rules the one which I cite ? If tins 
be Queen's English, you may well say of 
the authorities I quoted, " There are more 

* See '■Lectures on the English Language \ by 
George P. Marsh, Minister of the United States at 
the court of the King of Italy. 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 6B 

li things in the English language than 
" seem to have been dreamt of in their 
" philosophy "; for I am quite sure that 
they never dreamt of any such absurdi- 
ties. 

In my former letter I drew attention c f JJJJ^ 
to your misplacing of adverbs ; and now usual * 
you appear to be trying, in some instances, 
to get over the difficulty by altogether 
omitting the adverbs, and supplying their 
places by adjectives ; and this is not a 
new error with you. You had previously 
said, " If with your inferiors, speak no 
" coarser than usual ; if with your superiors, 
" no finer" We may correctly say, " a 
4< certain person speaks coarsely "/ but it 
is absurdly ungrammatical to say, " he 
" speaks coarse "/ In your second essay, 
you say, M the words nearest connected ", 
instead of, "the words most nearly con- 
nected"; but this will never do; the 
former error, that of position, was bad 
enough, it was one of syntax ; the latter 
error, that of substituting one part of 

speech for another, is still worse. I have Adjectives 

and ad- 
spoken of your " decided weak point" ; I verbs. 



B6 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH 

will now give another example, a very- 
remarkable one, for it is an example of 
using an adjective instead of an adverb, 
in a sentence in which yon are speaking of 
using an adverb instead of an adjective. 
You say, "The fact seems to be, that in 
" this case I was using the verb ' read ' in 
" a colloquial and scarcely legitimate sense, 
"and that the adverb seems necessary, 
" because the verb is not a strict neuter* 
" substantive." We may properly speak 
of a word being not strictly a neuter-sub- 
stantive; but we cannot properly speak 
of a substantive being " strict ". So much 
for the grammar of the sentence ; now for 
its meaning. Your sentence is an expla- 
nation of your use of the word "oddly") 
in the phrase, " would read rather oddly"; 
and oddly enough you have explained it ; 
"would read" is the conditional form of 
the verb / and how can that ever be either 
a neuter-substantive, or a substantive of any 
other hind f 

In your former essay you prepared us 
to expect many strange things ; I suppose 
we are to receive this as one of them. 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 57 

You told us, " Plenty more might be said 
" about grammar ; plenty that would 
" astonish some teachers of it. I may 
" say something of this another time." 
Take all the credit you like; you have 
well earned it ; for you have more than 
redeemed your promise ; you have aston- 
ished other people beside teachers of 
grammar. 

Again, you say, " The whole number is ne". reai 
" divided into two classes : the first class 
" and the last class. To the former of 
" these belong three : to the latter, one ". 
That is, " To the former of these belong 
11 three ; to the latter [belong'] one " ; one 
belong ! When, in the latter part of a 
compound senience, we change the nomi- 
native, we must likewise change the verb, 
that it may agree with its nominative. 
The error is repeated in the very next sen- • 
tence. You say, " There are three that are 
" ranged under the description ' first ' : and 
" one that is ranged under the description 
" ' last \" That is, " There are three that 
" are ranged under the description c first ' ; 
" and [there are\ one that is ranged under 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 

" the description c last'." There are one ! 
The sentence cannot be correctly analysed 
in any other way. It is true we understand 
what you mean; just as we understand 
the meaning of the childish prattle of our 
little ones ; but, because your sentence 
is not unintelligible, it is not, on that 
account the less incorrect. It appears 
to me that, before you have finished " a 
sentence, you have forgotten how you 
began it. Here is another instance. You 
say, " We call a ' cup-board ' a ' cubbard ', 
" a • half-penny ', a ' haepenny \ and so of 
" many other compound words ". Had 
you begun your sentence thus, We speak of 
a " cup-board " as a " cubbard ", of a 
" half-penny " as a " haepenny " it would 
have been correct to say, " and so o/niany 
" other compound words " ; because the 
clause would mean, " and so [we speak] 
44 of many other compound words " ; but 
having begun the sentence with, " We 
" call " it is sheer nonsense to -finish it 
with,, " and so of" ; for it is saying, " and 
" so [we call] of many other compound 
" words ". 






THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 59 

Elsewhere you say, "Call a. spade 'a 
" l spade ', not an oblong instrument of 
w manual husbandry ; let home be 'home', 
" not a residence ; a place a ' place ', not a 
" locality ; and so of the rest." What is 
your meaning in this last clause ? The 
sentence is undoubtedly faulty, whether 
the words " and so of" are considered in 
connexion with the first clause, or in con- 
nexion with the following one. In the 
former case we must say, " and [speak] so 
" of the rest "; and in the latter case we ~ 
must say, " and [let us speak] so of the 
M rest ". In neither case can we use the 
word " call ", with which you have begun 
your sentence. 

Here is another specimen of your 1^^^°' 
4 Queen? s English ', or rather of the Dean's JS?'™ y " 
English ; a sj^ecimen in which the verbs, 
past and present, are in a most delightful 
state of confusion. You are speaking of 
your previous essay, and of the reasons- 
you had for writing it ; and you say, "If 
<C I had believed the Queen's English to 
" have been rightly laid down by the dic- 
" tionaries and the professors of rhetoric, I 



60 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

" need not have troubled myself to write 
"about it. It was exactly because I did 
" not believe this, but found both of them 
" in many cases going .astray, that I ven- 
" tured to put in my pfea." 

E~ow, "I need not" is present, not past ; 
and it is of the past yon are speaking ; you 
should therefore have said, "I needed not", 
or, " I should not have needed ". And the 
verb " troubled ", which you have put in 
the past, should have been in the present ; 
just as the verb " need " which you have 
put in the present should have been in the 
past ; for you were not speaking of what 
you would not have needed to have do?ie, 
but of what you would not have needed to 
do. The sentence, then, should have been, 
"If I had believed so-and-so, I should not 
" have needed to trouble myself ". 
Professors I mav notice also that, in the above 

v/alkhigoff J 

with the sentence, you speak of rules laid down 

dictionaries. * ^ x 

by the " dictionaries ", and the "pro- 
u fessors of rhetoric "/ thus substituting, 
in one case, the works for the men;* 
and, in the other case, speaking of the 
men themselves. Why not either speak 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 

of the " compilers of dictionaries", and the 
"professors of rhetoric"; or else speak of 
the " dictionaries", and the " treatises on 
" rhetoric" f Write cither figuratively or 
literally, whichever you please ; or write 
in each style, by turns, if you like ; for, 
variety in a series of sentences, where 
there is uniformity in each, is a beauty ; 
but variety in a single sentence is merely 
confusion: witness the following extract 
from Gilfillan's ''Literary Portraits'- i — 
" Channlng's mind was planted as thick 
"with thoughts as a backwood of his 
" own magnificent land." A backwood 
planted with thoughts ! What a glorious 
harvest for the writers of America! 
says Breen. However, I must not enter 
upon the subject of style, lest I should 
extend this letter to a wearisome length. 
Suffice it to say, you do not mean that 
you found the p )ro f essors °f rhetoric 
walking off with the books; though you 
do tell us you "found both of them" 
(the dictionaries and the professors of 
rhetoric) " in many cases going astray ". 

Continuing my review, I have to notice t^onS*" 



"A difficiil- 



62 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

that you say, "His difficulty (and I men* 
" tion it because it may be that of many 
" others besides him) is that he has missed 
" the peculiar sense of the preposition by 
" as here used." Your difficulty seems 
to be, that you have missed seeing the 
peculiar sense {nonsense) of your own ex- 
pressions. You tell us that you men- 
tion your correspondent's difficulty, be- 
cause it may be a difficulty of many 
other people, besides being a difficulty of 
him ! 

The present -r^. 11 -, ... . 

and future Jb mally, as regards my criticisms on 

of verbs. 

your grammar ; you say, " The next 
" point which I notice shall be the use of 
u the auxiliaries c shall ■ and c loill \ Now 
" here we are at once struck by a curious 
" phenomenon." We certainly are ; — 
the phenomenon of a gentleman setting 
himself up to lecture on the use of verbs, 
and publicly proclaiming his unfitness for 
the task by confusing the present and the 
future in the very first sentence he utters 
on the subject, 
"top?? Speaking of the verb "to progress", 
eress * you say, " The present usage makes the 



THE LEAN'S ENGLISH. 

f verb neuter ", and, " We seem to want 
" it ; and if we do, and it does not violate 
"any known law of formation, by all 
"means let us have it. True, it is the 
" first of its own family ; we have not 
"yet formed aggress, regress, &c, into 
" verbs." If you will allow me to digress 
from the consideration of your grammar 
to the consideration of your accuracy, I 
will show that you transgress in making 
this statement. In the folio edition of 
Bailey's ' Universal Dictionary', published 
in 1755, I find the very verbs, " to ag- 
" gress" and u to regress", which you, in 
1863, say u we have not yet formed". In 
the same dictionary there is also the verb 
" to progress "/ and it is given as a verb 
neuter. So that what you call " the pre- 
" sent usage " is, clearly, the usage of the 
past / the verb which you say is " the first 
" of its own family ", is nothing of the 
sort ; " to aggress " and " to regress ", which 
you say " we have not yet formed ", are 
found in a dictionary published in 1755; 
and the neuter verb which you say " we 
" seem to want ", we have had in use more 



64 , THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

than one hundred years! Nor are the 
verbs aggress and regress mere " dictionary 
"words w ithout any authority for their use". 
The former is used by Prior in his ' Ode to 
1 Queen Anne '/ and the latter is used 
by Sir Thomas Browne in his ' Vtdgar 
' Errors \* 

I will briefly notice a few of your 
numerous errors in syntax, &c, and then 
pass on to weightier matters. You speak 

^Precluded f a possibility being "precluded in" the 
mind. You tell us of " a more neat way 

!ng1?sen-" " °^ expressing what would be 3fr. Moon's 
" sentence ". We express a meaning, or we 
write a sentence ; but we do not express a 
sentence. The word seems to be rather a 
pet of yours; you speak on page 198, 

Expressing f expressing a woman! ' Queer Eng-^ 
' lish ' would not have been an inappro- 
priate title to your essays. Then we 

^in respect h ave « j n re spect of ", for " with respect 



* For an account of the. origin and gradual develop- 
ment of the words "progress", "digress", "egress", 
" regress ", and " transgress ", see an interesting 
little book, called c English Roots ', by A. J. Knapp, 
p. 135. 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH 65 

" to "/* and " an exception, which 1 cannot J^p t ^ n an 
" well treat ", instead of, " of which I can- 
not well treat"; for it is evident from • 
the context, that you were not speaking of 
treating an- exception, but of treating of an 
exception. 

The construction of some of your objection- 
able con- 
sentences is very objectionable : you struction of 

J -} J sentences. 

" say, I have noticed the^ word ' party • 

" used for an individual, occurring 

" in Shalcspeare ", instead of, " I have 

11 noticed, in Shakspeare, the word ' party ' 

" used for an individual". But how is it 

that you call a man an individual? I Q viduar^ 1 " 

your first essay on the Queen's English 

you said, "It is. certainly curious enough 

" that the same debasing of our language 

" should choose, in order to avoid the 

" good honest Saxon ' man ', two words, 

" ' individuaV and • party ', one of which ex- 

" presses a man's unity, and the other 

" belongs to man associated.'''' It certainly 

* This error is treated of at some length in 
' Lectures on the English Language ', by George P. . * 
Marsh, edited by Dr. William Smith, Classical Ex- 
aminer at the University of London, pp. 487-9. 

F 



P;6 THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 

is curious ; but what appears to me to be 
more curious still, is that you, after writing 
that sentence, should yourself call a man 
w an; individual "/ 
Again, I read, " The purpose is, to bring 
Intopro- " the fact stated into prominence " : stated 

minence." . . . . , , . 

into prominence ! unquestionably, this 
should be, " to bring into prominence the 
o^ofcoa 1 -' 1 fact stated". ' 

structing a -^ , . . . , 

sentence. ±Lven when writing on the proper con- 
struction of a sentence, you construct your 
own sentence so «w?properly that it fails 
to convey your meaning. You say, " The 
" natural order of constructing the sen- 
" tence would be to relate what happened 
" first, and my surprise at it afterwards ". 
Your sentence does not enlighten us on 
your views of the proper order in which 
the facts should be related; it tells us 
merely that we should relate what first 
happened, and your subsequent surprise 
at it. Not one word about the order of 
relation. We are to relate what "happened 
"first " but we are not told what to relate 
first. You should have said, " The natural 
" order of constructing the sentence would 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 01 

" be to relate first what happened, and 

''''afterwards my surprise at it". You go 

on to tell us that we ought not " to mislead m . 

" the reader, by introducing the possibi- 

" lity of constructing the sentence other- 

<c wise than as the writer intended ". 

How much easier it is to preach than to "Con- 
struct" and 
practise! What do you wish us to un- " construe". 

derstand by readers " constructing " the 

sentence ? Writers construct • readers 

Construe. Incongru- 

ous associa- 

Lastly, on this part of the subject ; ideas! 
you say, "Mr. Moon quotes, with dis- 
" approbation, my words, where I join 
" together l would have been broken to 
." l pieces in a deep rut, or come to grief 
" c in a bottomless swamp '. He says this 
" can only be filled in thus, ' would have 
a ' been ' ", &c. I am quite sure that Mr. 
Moon never, after mentioning your sen- 
tence about u a deep rut " and li a bottomless 
"swamp", speaks of the sentence being 
"filled in "/ That is the Dean of Canter- 
bury's style ; he gives a sentence about 
eating and being full, and then speaks of 
the sentence being u filled up "/ He speaks, 
F % 



63 TUB DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

of people mending their ways y and, in the 
very next paragraph, talks about the 
" Queers highway " and " by-roads " and 
"private roads". He speaks of things 
"without life"; and immediately afterwards 
says he will introduce the body of— his essay. 

E^ e Hsh\ You will, doubtless, gain great notoriety 
by your strange essays on the Queen's 
English ; for, in consequence of your in- 
accuracies in them, it will become usual to 
describe bad language as "Dean's English". 
By " bad language ", I do not mean rude 
language ; I say nothing about that. I 
mean that, in consequence of your un- 
grammatical sentences, it will be as com- 
mon to call false English, " Dea?i f s Eng- 
"lish", as it is to call base white metal, 
" German Silver" 

Eight-and- You say, "I have given a fair sample 

twenty . 

nouns be- " f the instances of ambiguity which Mr. 

tv/een a pro- ^ 

£°™ andits " Moon cites out of my essay". A fair 
sample ! And yet you have made no 
mention of the instance of the eight-and- 
twenty nouns intervening between the 
pronoun "it" and the noun "habit", to 
which it refers. A fair sample ! And 



THE DEA2PS EXGLISH. 09 

yd you have made no mention of the £f Jiffies 1 
instance of ambiguity in the paragraph Jo,240 dif- 

, ferent read- 

about "covetous and covetousness , aings. 
paragraph of less than ten lines, yet so 
ambiguously worded that you may ring 
as many changes on it as on a peal of 
bells ; only the melody would not be quite 
as sweet. However, if you do not object 
to a little bell-ringing, and if you will 
not think it sacrilegious of me to pull 
the ropes, I will just see what kind of a 
peal of bells it is that you have hung 
in your belfry, for I call the paragraph, 
" the belfry ", and the pronouns, " the peal 
" of bells ", and these I name after the 
gamut, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, so we shall 
not have any difficulty in counting the 
changes. You say, "While treating of 
"the pronunciation of those who minister 
" in public, two other words occur to me 
" which are very commonly mangled by 
" our clergy. One of these is ' covetous ', 
"and its substantive * covetousness'. I 
"hope some who read these lines, will 
*" be induced to leave off pronouncing 

B 

" them ' covetious ' and * covetiousness '. I 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

C D S 

" can assure them that when they do thua 

E F 

" call them, one, at least, of ^AszV hearers 

o 

" has his appreciation of their teaching 
" disturbed ". I fancy that many a one 
who reads these lines will have his appre- 
ciation of your teaching disturbed, as far 
as it relates to the Queen's. English. But 
now for the changes which may be rung 
on these bells, as I have called them. 
The first of them, "A", may apply either 
to "words", or to "our clergy". You 
say, " our clergy. One of these is c covet- 
" ' ous ' ". I am sorry to say that the 
general belief is, there are more than one ; 
but perhaps you know one in particular. 
However, my remarks interrupt the bell- 
ringing, and we want to count the changes, 
so I will say no more, but will at once 
demonstrate that we can ring 10,240 
changes on your peal of bells ! In other 
words, that your paragraph, of less than 
ten lines, is so ambiguously worded, that, 
without any alteration of its grammar or 
syntax, it may be read in 10,240 different 
ways ! and only one of all that number shall 
be the right way to express your meaning 



THE DEAN'S EXGLTSH. 



The Pro- 
nouns. 


Nouns to which they may apply. 


^X 


No. of Different Readings. 


A 
B 

C 
D 
E 
F 
G 


these 
them 
them 
they 
them 
their 
their 


words, or clergy 
words, clergy, leaders, or lines 
words, clergy, readers, or lines 
words, clergy, readers, or lines 
words, clergy, readers, or lines 
words, elergy, readers, or lines 
( words, clergy, readers, lines, 
j or hearers .... 


2 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 

5 


... 2 
these 4 X by the above 2= S 
these 4 X by the above 8= 32 
these 4 X by the above 32= 128 
these 4 X by the above 128= 612 
these 4 X by the above 512= 2048 

these 5 X by the above 204S=10,210 



This is indeed a valuable addition to a literary 

curiosity. 

the curiosities of literature : a treasure 
u presented to the british nation by 
" the Very Rev. the Dean of Canter- 
" bury ". No doubt it will be carefully 
preserved in the library of the British 
Museum. 

I have now, a serious charge to pre- The play of 

° m l Hamlet 

for against you; a charo-A to which I w , ith * h l 

& J ' ° ghost left 

am reluctant to give a name. I will 0111, 
therefore simply state the facts, and leave 
the public to give to you* proceedings in 
this matter, whatever name they may 
think most fitting. You say, on page 
439, " I am reminded, in writing this, of a 
" criticism of Mr. Moon's on my remarks 



V2 THE DEAN'S -ENGLISH. 

" that we have dropped ' thou ' and ' thee ' 
"in our addresses to our fellow-men, and 
" reserved those words for our addresses 
"in prayer to Him who is the highest 
" personality. It will be hardly believed 
" that he professes to set this right by 
" giving his readers and me the information 
" that ' these pronouns are very extensively 
" ■ and profusely ' (I used no such word) 
" ' used in poetry, even (!) when inanimate 
" i objects are addressed ' : and thinks it 
" worth while to quote Coleridge's Address 
" to Mont Blanc to prove his point ! Really 
" might not the very obvious notoriety of 
" the fact he adduces have suggested to 
"him that it was totally irrelevant to the 
" matter I was treating of?" Truly, this 
is the play of Hamlet with the ghost left 
out by special desire. Your object was to 
controvert what I had advanced against 
your essay; and, I must say, that the 
means you have adopted to accomplish 
that end, are, to speak mildly, not much 
to your credit. I will prove what I say, 
TJie one word, against which the whole of 
my argument was directed, you have, in 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 73 

reproducing your sentence, omitted from 
the quotation • and then, of the mangled 
remains of the sentence, you exclaim, " It 
" will be hardly believed that he professes 
" to set this right ". I professed nothing 
of the sort ; you must know well, that my 
attack was against the one word which you 
have omitted. That this was the case, 
may clearly be seen on reference to my 
former letter,* where that word was, and 
still imprinted in italics, to draw special 
attention to it. You betray the weakness 
of your cause when you have recourse to 
such a suppression. 

Nor is the above instance of misquota-Misquota- 

* tion of an 

tion the only one in your essay. On page ^ p ?d3. ent8 
429, you put into my mouth words which 
I never uttered ; words which express a 
meaning totally at variance with what I 
said. You enclose the sentence in inverted 
commas to mark that it is a quotation ; 
and, as if that were not enough, you preface 
that sentence with this doubly emphatic 
remark; " these are his words not mine". 
You then make me say that I hope " as I 
* Page 1. 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

" so strongly advocate our following the 
" Greeks in the pronunciation of their 
" proper names, I shall be consistent, and 
" never again, in reading the Lessons, call 
" those ancient cities Samaria and Phila- 
" delphia otherwise than Samarta and 
" Philadelphia." I never had any such 
thought, nor did I ever express any such 
wish. These words are not mine ; nor are 
they any more like mine, than I am like 
you. The original sentence, of which the 
above is a perversion, will be found on 
page 30 of my former letter. 

But the part of my letter which you 
most fully notice in your reply, is that 
which treats of the arrangement of sen- 
tences ; and, exactly as you suppress, in 
the instance I have given, the one important 
word on which the whole of the argument 
turns ; so, in the matter of the arrangement 
of sentences, you suppress the one impor- 
tant paragraph which qualifies all the rest ! 
You privately draw the teeth of the lion 
and then publicly show how valiantly you 
can put your head into his mouth ; thus 
not only damaging your own character for 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

honesty of representation, but also insult- 
ing the intelligence of the public, who 
you imagine can be deceived by such 
childish performances. The following are 
the facts of the case. You say, after 
mentioning the authorities I had named, 
"The one rule of all others" (!) "which 
" he " (Mr. Moon) " cites from these au- 
" thorities, and which he believes me to 
"have continually violated, is this: that 
" ' those parts of a sentence which are most 
" ' closely connected in their meaning, should 
" ' be as closely as possible connected in 
" 'position \ Or, as he afterwards quotes 
" it from Dr. Blair, ' A capitcd rule in the 
" { arrangement of 'sentences is, that the 
"' words or members most nearly related 
" \ should be placed in the sentence as near 
" ' to each other as possible, so as to make 
" ' their mutual relation clearly appear ' ". 
You then go on to say, " Now doubtless 
" this rule is, in the main, and for general 
" guidance, a good and useful one ; indeed, 
" so plain to all, that it surely needed no 
" inculcating by these venerable writers. 
" But there are more things in the English 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

" language than seem to have "been dreamt 
" of in their philosophy. If this rule 
" were uniformly applied, it would break 
" down the force and the living interest of 
".style in any English writer, and reduce his 
" matter to a dreary and dull monotony ; 
" for it is in exceptions to its application 
" that almost all vigour and character of 
" style consist ". Would any person — 
could any person — in reading the above 
extract from your reply to my letter, ever 
imagine that that letter contains such a 
paragraph as the following ? . I quote from 
page 26, where I say, " In contending for 
" the law of position, as laid down by Lord 
"Karnes, Dr. Campbell, and others, I do 
" so on the ground, that the observance of 
"' this law contributes to that most essen- 
" tial quality in all writings — perspicuity ; 
" and although I would not, on any account, 
" wish to see all sentences constructed on 
" one uniform plan, I maintain that the 
" law of position must never be violated 
" when such violation would in any way 
" obscure the meaning. Let your meaning 
" still be obvious, and you may vary your 



THE DEAN'S EXGLISH. 

" mode of * expression asyouplease, and your 
"language 10 ill be the richer for the varia- 
" Hon. Let your meaning be obscure, and 
" no grace of diction, nor any music of a 
* well-turned period, will make amends to 
" your readers for their being liable to 
"misunderstand you". The existence of 
this paragraph, by which I so carefully 
qualify the reader's acceptance of Dr. 
Blair's law of position as a universal rule, 
you utterly ignore / and, w T ith the most 
strange injustice, you charge me, through 
sentence after sentence, and column after 
column, of your tedious essay, w T ith main- 
taining that all expressions should be 
worded on one certain uniform plan. 
Sentences so arranged are, you say, accord- 
ing to " Mr. Moon's rule ". Sentences 
differing from that arrangement are, you 
say, a violation of "Mr. Moon's rule". 
With as much reasonableness might you 
leave out the word " not ", from the ninth 
commandment, and assert that it teaches, 
" ThousAa^ bear false witness against thy 
" neighbour." 

This being your method of conducting 



78 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

a controversy, I assure you that, were you 
not the Dean of Canterbury, I would not 
answer your remarks. Doubtless, before 
the publication of this rejoinder, many of 
the readers of your second essay will have 
noticed the significant circumstance, that 
of the various examples you give of sen- 
tences constructed on what you are pleased 
to call " Mr. Moon's rule ", but which, as I 
have shown, is ov^j apart of " Mr. Moon's 
"rule", not one example is drawn from 
Mr. Moon's own letter. 

You say, "But surely we have had 
" enough of Mr. Moon and his rules ". 
I do not doubt that you have ; but I must 
still detain you, as the Ancient Mariner 
detained the wedding-guest, until the tale 
is told. That being finished, I will let you 
go ; and I trust that like him, you will 
learn wisdom from the past : — 

" He went like one that hath been stunned, 

" And is of sense forlorn : 
" A sadder and a tviscr man, 

" He rose the morrow morn." 

th/intro- With respect to the date of the intro- 
duction of . 
"its" into duction of the possessive pronoun "its \ 

the Bible. l l 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

which, you said, "never occurs in the 
" English version of the Bible " ; and 
which, as I showed you, occurs in Levit- 
icus, xxv. 5 ; you shelter yourself under 
the plea that you meant that the word 
never occurs in the "authorised edition", 
known as "King James's Bible". But, 
as you did not say either " authorised 
"edition" or " King James } s JBible", I am 
justified in saying that you have only 
yourself to blame for the consequences 
of having used language so unmistakably 
equivocal, as you certainly did when you 
said, " the English version of the Bible ", 
and did not mean the English version 
now in every one's hands, but meant a 
particular edition published 252 years 
ago. Speaking of my correction of your 
error, you say, " What is to be regretted 
"is, that a gentleman who is setting 
" another right with such a high hand, 
" should not have taken the pains to ex- 
" amine the English version as it really ( 
"stands, before printing such a sentence 
" as that which I have quoted ". I will 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

show you that my examination of th ' 
subject has been sufficiently deep to d** 
cover that yours must have been ve t 
superficial. Speaking of the word " its , 
you say, "its apparent occurrence in the* 
" place quoted is simply due to the King's* 
" printers, who have modernised the pas-' 
" sage ". " Apparent occurrence " ! It is v> 
a real occurrence. Are we not to believe J 
our eyes? As for the '-''King's prin- 
"ters", it was not they who introduced - 
the word " its " into the English Bible. 
The first English Bible in which the word 
is found, is one that was printed at a time 
when there was no King on the English 
throne, consequently when there were no 
" King^s printers " : it was printed during 
the Commonwealth. !N"or was that Bible 
printed by the " printers to the Parlia- 
" ment ". Indeed, it is doubtful whether 
it was printed in this country. The word 
" its " first occurs in the English version 
of the Bible, in a spurious edition sup- 
posed to have been printed in Amsterdam. 
It may be distinguished from the genuine 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. g 

',tion* of the same date, 1653, by that 
j word " its ", which is not found in 
editions printed by the " printers to 
i i Parliament ", or by the " King's prin- 
ters " until many years afterwards. So 
uen, in your endeavours to escape the 
large of inaccuracy contained in my 
jrmer letter, you say that the introduc- 
tion of the word " its ", into the English 
v ersion of the Bible, is owing to the "JETing's 
printers ", you, in trying to escape Scylla, 
•e drawn into the whirlpool of Cha- 
/ybdis ! 

You speak of my demolishing your J£[fJ™°J f 
character for accuracy. I do not know Scn P ture - 
what character you have for accuracy; 

- 

* The genuine edition contains most gross errors , 
for instance, in Rom, vi. 13, it is said, "Neither yield 
"ye your members as instruments of righteousness", 
instead of " ^righteousness " ; and, as if to con- 
firm the above teaching, it is said, in 1 Cor. vi. 9, 
" the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of 
" God " ; instead of " shall not inherit ". Com- 
plaint wa3 made to the Parliament ; and most of the 
copies now extant were cleared of the errors by the 
cancelling of leaves. The spurious edition is com- 
paratively faultless. 

a 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

but this I know, that whenever I see a 
man sensitively jealous of any one point 
in particular of his character, I am not 
often wrong in taking his jealousy to be 
a sure sign of conscious weakness in that 
very point. What are the facts of the 
case with regard to yourself? I have 
given several instances of your gross 
mac curacy. I take no notice of unim- 
portant misquotations of the Scriptures 
and of my own sentences, though I could 
mention several of each occurring in your 
second essay ; but what are we to say of 
the following ? It is, if intentional, which 
I cannot believe, the boldest instance of 
misquotation of Scripture, to suit a special 
purpose, that I ever met with. ' I am sure 
it must have been unintentional ; but it 
is such an error, that to have fallen into 
it will, I hope, serve so to convince you 
that you, like other mortals, are liable to 
err ; that the remembrance of it will be 
a powerful restraint on your indignation, 
if others should venture, as I have done, 
to call in question your accuracy. The 
singular instance of misquotation to which 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

I refer is the following. — Speaking of the 
adverb " only " and of its proper position 
in a sentence ; you say, " The adverb 
" ' only ', in many sentences, where strictly 
" speaking it ought to follow its verb, and 
" to limit the objects of the verb, is in 
" good English placed before the verb. 
" Let us take some examples of this from 
"the great storehouse of good English, 
" our authorised version of the Scriptures. 
"In Numbers xii. 2, Ave read, 'Hath the 
"'Lord only spoken by Moses ? hath He 
" ' not spoken also by us V According to 
" some of my correspondents, and to Mr. 
"Moon's pamphlet (p. 12)*, this ought to 
" be, ' Hath the Lord spoken only by 
" ' Moses ?' I venture to prefer very 
" much the words as they stand ". Now, 
strange as it may appear after your asser- 
tion, it is nevertheless a fact that the 
words, as you quote them, do not occur 
either in the authorised version, known as 
King James's Bible of 1611, or in our 
present version, or in any other version 
that I have ever seen; and the words, in 
* Page 14, in this Edition. 

G 2 



8*1 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

the order in which you say I and your 
other correspondents would have written 
them, do occur in every copy of the Scrip- 
tures to which I have referred! So you 
very much prefer the words as they stand, 
do you ? Ha ! ha ! ha ! So do I. "When 
next you write about the adverb " only ", 
be sure you quote only the right passage 
of Scripture to suit your purpose ; and on 
no account be guilty of perverting the 
sacred text ; for these" are not the days 
when the Laity will accept without proof, 
where proof is possible, the statements of 
even the Dean of Canterbury, 
why do you Before closing this letter, I have iust 

call me an ° J 

a38? one question to ask; it is this: Why do 

you say I must have " a most abnormal 
" elongation of the auricular appendages"? 
In other words, Why do you call me an 
ass ? I confess to a little curiosity in the 
matter ; therefore pardon ' me if I press 
the inquiry. Is it because the authorities 
I quoted are " venerable Scotchmen " and 
that therefore you conclude I must be 
fond of thistles P—No ? Well, I will 
guess again. Is it because I kicked at 



THE BE AX'S EXGLISH 

your authority 1 — No ? Well, once more. 
Is it because, like Balaam's ass, I " forbad 
" the madness of the prophet "? Still, No ? 
Then I must give it up, and leave to my 
readers the solving of the riddle ; and 
while perhaps there may be some who 
"will come to the conclusion that the Dean 
of Canterbury calls me an ass because I 
have been guilty of braying at him ; there 
are others, I know, who w T ill laughingly 
say that the braying has been of that 
kind mentioned in Prov. xxvii. 22. 

I am, Rev. Sir, 

Your most obedient servant, 

G. WASHINGTON" MOON. 

London, July, 1863. 



THE LEAN'S ENGLISH. 

ISTote. — The Dean of Canterbury Laving 
published a letter exonerating himself 
from the charge of discourtesy, the fol- 
lowing appeared in c The Patriot ■ news- 
paper, in answer to that letter. 

THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH. 

TO TIIE EDITOR OF THE PATRIOT. 

" Sir, — Permit me to say, in reference to the 
letter from the Dean of Canterbury which you 
published in the last number of ' The Patriot ', 
that I heartily join you in your regret that any 
personalities should have intruded into this 
discussion on the Queen's English, and I gladly 
welcome from the Dean any explanation which 
exonerates him from the charge of discourtesy. 
But I must say, in justification of my having 
made those condemning remarks which called 
forth the Dean's letter, that I was not alone in 
my interpretation of his language. Those who 
had the privilege of hearing the Dean deliver 
his Plea\ when there were all the accom- 
panying advantages of emphasis and gesture 
to assist the hearers to a right understanding 
of the speaker's meaning, understood the 
epithets which he employed to be intended for 
me; and, as such, generally condemned them. 
My authority is ' The South-Eastern Gazette ', 
of May 19th, which published a report of the 
meeting. 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

"The Dean states, in his explanatory letter, 
that he intended the objectionable epithets not 
for me, but for the hypothetical reader supposed 
by me to be capable of the misapprehensions 
I had adduced. It happens, rather unfor- 
tunately for the Dean's explanation, that I had 
not spoken of any hypothetical reader. Liter a 
scripta manct, — judge for yourself. I spoke 
not of what the Dean's faulty language might 
suggest to some imaginary reader, but of what 
it did suggest ; and to whom, but to me ? The 
hypothetical reader is entirely a creation of 
the Dean's. However as he says he intended 
the epithets for this said reader, that is suf- 
ficient. I am quite willing to help the Dean 
to put the saddle on his imaginary "ass"; 
and I think the Dean cannot do better than set 
the imaginary "idiot" on the said ass's back, 
and then probably the one. will gallop away 
with the other, and we may never hear any- 
thing more of either of them. 

" I am, Sir, 

" Yours most respectfull}*, 

"G. WASHINGTON MOON. 

-'Sept. 12th, 1363." 



" Instead of always fixing our thoughts 
"upon the points in which our literature and 
"our intellectual life generally are strong, we 
" should, from time to time, fix them upon 
41 those in which they are weak, and so learn to 
" perceive clearly what we have to amend." — 
Matthew Arnold. 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 



CRITICISM No. III. 

THE CONCLUSION. 

Rev. Sir, 

It gives me QTeat pleasure to withdraw withdrawal 
to . ofthe 

the charge of discourtesy contained in my charge of 

° J * discourtesy, 

former letter to you. I cordially accept 
the explanation you have given ; and 
though I cannot quite reconcile your 
statements with all the facts of the case, 
I feel sure that the discrepancy is aj3- 
parent, not real ; and that you are sincere 
in saying you did not intend to apply to 
me those epithets of which I complained. 
But allow me to remark that for whom- 
soever they were intended, they are 
" objectionable ". Such figures of speech 
neither add weight to arguments, nor give 
dignity to language ; they serve only to 



90 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

illustrate how easy it is for a teacher of 
others to disregard his own lessons, and 
become oblivious of the fict that all 
teaching, like all charity, should begin 
at home. 
a teacher is Actuated by a sincere love for the 

always a- ^ 

SSStaa* language which, it seems to me, you are 
injuring by precept and by example, I 
resume my criticisms on your essays. 
You constitute yourself .a teacher of the 
Queen's English. Were it not so, I 
should consider any strictures on your 
language as simply impertinent; but as 
you have judged it to be right to lecture 
the public on certain improprieties of 
expression which have crept into common 
use ; it cannot be out of place for one of 
the public whom you address, to step 
forward on behalf of himself and his 
companions, and test your fitness for the 
office you have assumed; especially if he 
confine his test to an examination of 
the language used in those very lectures 
themselves. 
"Honor" ^ ne 0T ^J deviation which I have 
"favor", made from that course is in my second 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 

letter. There, noticing your remarks con- 
cerning the practice of spelling without 
the "m" such words as "honour" and 
"favour", I quote from your 'Poems'* the 
words so spelt, and add some prefatory 
remarks of yours concerning them. In 
your third essay you speak of the above 
circumstance, and you inform me that 
the words "honor" and "favor", which I 
quoted from your 'JPoems \ were from that 
part of the volume which was printed 
in America, and that it was against such 
American spelling that you, in your preface, 
protested. 

Allow me to say, in explanation of my^' 
having unconsciously quoted from the 
American part of the volume, that, as the 
preface stated that the poems which you 
added to the American edition were the 
products of "later years", it was not un- 
natural for me to believe they were 
those headed "Recext Poems": and it 
was from them that my quotations were 
made. Besides, you call the American 
part of the volume the " nucleus " of the 
edition; therefore, if I had taken my 



92 THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 

examples of orthography from the com- 
mencement as well as from the end of 
the volume, I should have been justified 
in doing so; for, surely, a "nucleus" is 
that around which other matter is col- 
lected. You do indeed make a strange 
use of the word when you call 400 pages 
of a volume of poems the " nucleus " and 
leave only 29 pages at the end, to come 
under the description of "conglobated 
" matter " ! However, even in those few 
pages of English printing, which, accord- 
ing to your own confession, were nnder 
your control, I find the word honour 
spelt "honor", and the word odours spelt 
" odors ". The charge, therefore, stands as 
it did; and your explanation has served 
only to draw more scrutinizing attention to 
an inconsistency which otherwise might 
have passed almost unnoticed. 
"No more", So you really defend your ungrammati- 

and "never # • m 

aiain ". cal sentence, " If with your inferiors speak 
" no coarser than usual ; if with your 
" superiors, no finer " ; and you not only 
defend it, as allowable, but actually main- 
tain that it is "strictly correct" ; the 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 93 

ground of your assertion being that you 
had "no choice" open to you between 
saying "speak no coarser than usual", 
and " speak no more coarsely than usual" ; 
and you objected to the latter expression 
because you believed it would have been 
ambiguous, owing to the term " no more " 
being capable of meaning " never again ". 
Are you not aware that a weak defence 
is a strong admission? It is true that 
a no more" sometimes signifies "never 
"again" ; but you well know that it 
never can have that signification when 
it is followed by "than". The phrase 
"speak no more coarsely than usual" 
could never be understood as "speak 
"never again coarsely than usual"; for, 
such a sentence would be without mean- 
ing. Besides, if you feared that your 
sentence would be ambiguous with the 
expression "no more than", why did you 
use that expression in other parts of your 
essays? For instance, you say, "The 
" Queen is no more the proprietor of the 
"English language than you or I". A 
certain word, you say, " ought no more to 



94 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

" be spelt ' cliocess ', than cheese ouglit to 
"be spelt 'chess'." Where were your 
scruples about "no more" and "never 
" again", when you wrote these sentences ? 
As for your having no choice between 
saying, "speak no coarser than usual" 
and saying " speak no more coarsely than 
" usual " ; you certainly had not well con- 
sidered the subject when you made this 
remark; for, neither of the expressions is 
the best that might have been used; 
indeed, the former is grossly ungrammat- 
ical; and as for the latter, to make it 

Right to a " right to a t" you must change the " no " 
into " not "/ and we shall then have what 
will be correct, — "If with your inferiors 
" speak not more coarsely than usual" ; or, 
"do not spealc more coarsely than usual". 

"than" You tell us that "than" governs an 

gorern an . 

accusative? accusative case. What nonsense ! If 
"than" governs an accusative, the trans- 
lators of the Scriptures were wrong in 
making Solomon say, in Eccles. ii, 25, 
" Who can eat more than I? " They should 
have made him say, "Who can eat more 
"than me?" but even a child would tell 



THE DEA2PS EXGLISH 95 

you that such an expression would be 
absurd, except under the supposition that 
Solomon was the king of the Cannibal 
Islands. 

In your first 'Plea for the Queen' *s Eng- Janice 
1 lish\ you laid it down as a rule that l00ks " 
neuter verbs should not be qualified by 
adverbs, but by adjectives; i.e. we ought 
not to say "how nicely she looks", 
but "how nice she looks"; because, 
the verb "to loo7v\ as here used, is a 
neuter verb, one not indicating an action 
but merely a quality or state. Very well ; 
but unfortunately your practice mars the 
good which otherwise might be done by 
your precept ; for, " to appear " is as much 
a neuter verb as " to look " used as above ; 
in fact it is but another form of expres- 
sion for the same meaning ; and yet, after 
ridiculing "young ladies fresh from 
"school", for saying "how nicely she 
"looks"; you yourself say that the ac- 
count to be given of a certain inaccuracy 
"ajypears still more plainly" from the 
fact that, &c, &c. If I may be allowed 
to make a somewhat questionable pun, I 



96 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

will say that it appears to me more and 
more plain that you never more com- 
pletely missed your vocation than when 
you began lecturing " boarding-school 
"misses" on the Queen's English. 
Adjectives While remarking on your wrong use 

and adverbs ° •> ° 

of adverbs, I may notice that you say 
" our Lord's own use so frequently of the 
" term ". His use of a particular term 
may be said to have been frequent ; but 
it cannot be said to have been "frequently" 
Transpose the words in your sentence 
and you will see this at once. " Our 
"Lord's own so frequently nse of the 
" term " ! Surely no boarding-school miss 
would ever write thus. It is the verb that 
requires the adverb ; the noun requires the ; 
adjective. He xised the term frequently / 
but his use of it -was frequent. 
Theprepo- ^ n a f° rmer letter I called attention to 

sition ...... n ,i •.• 

"from", your injudicious use 01 the preposition 
"from " ; and I pointed out the necessity 
for guarding against suggesting any idea 
which has no real connexion with the 
matter of which you may be speaking. 
I gave, as an example of this kind of fault, 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH 97 

your sentence, " Sometimes the editors of 
" our papers fall, from their ignorance, into 
" absurd mistakes ". Here the preposition 
fcfrom", immediately following the verb 
"fall ", suggests the absurd idea of editors 
falling from their ignorance. In your 
third essay you repeat the fault, and speak 
of " architectural transition, from the ven- 
"erable front of an ancient cathedral". 
The sentence runs thus, " A smooth front 
"of stucco may be a comely thing for 
" those that like it, but very few sensible 
"men will like it, if they know that in 
"laying it on, we are proposing to ob- 
" literate the roughnesses, and mixture of 
" styles, and traces of architectural transi- 
tion, from the venerable front of an 
"ancient cathedral." Here, if you per- 
ceived that the mere juxtaposition of the 
words "transition" and "from" was 
suggestive of an idea which you by no 
means intended to convey, you should 
have separated the words by transposing 
the last clause of the sentence. It might 
have been done thus; — "proposing "to 
"obliterate, from the venerable front of 

H 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

" an ancient cathedral, the roughnesses 
"and mixture of styles, and traces of 
" architectural transition." You may say 
these are trifles ; but, remember, " it is by 
" attention to trifles that perfection is at- 
" tained ; and, perfection is no trifle." Be- 
sides, to quote your own words, " An error 
" may be, in an ordinary person, a trifle ; 
"but when a teacher makes it, it is no 
" longer a trifle." 

In your remarks on " so", used in con- 
nexion with " as", you say " ' so ' cannot 
"be used in the affirmative proposition, 
"nor 'as' in the negative". If this be 
correct, why do you yourself use " as " 
in the negative ? You say " ' its' was never 
" used in the early periods of our language, 
" nor, indeed, as late down as Elizabeth." 

But I suppose it is almost useless for 
me to address you on the subject of the 
various niceties of arrangement which re- 
quire to be attended to in the construction 
of sentences. You seem to care for none 
of these things. Yet, believe me, such 
matters, unimportant as they may appear, 
contribute in a far greater degree than 



THE DEANS ENGLISH. 99 

you imagine, to make up the sum of the 
difference between a style of composition 
which is ambiguous and inelegant ; and one 
which is perspicuous and chastely correct. 

You evidently entertain some fear lest itsffeS?" 
the study of the rules of composition 
should cramp the expression of the 
thoughts ! Never was there a more 
groundless apprehension: and in propor- 
tion as you are successful in disseminating 
such notions, do you inflict on our lan- 
guage the most serious injury. For- 
tunately for that language, the poison 
of your teaching carries with it its own 
antidote. They who read your essays on 
the Queen's English cannot fail to notice 
the significant fact that he who is thus 
strongly advocating the principle that the 
rules of composition serve no other pur- 
pose than to "cramp the expression of 
"his thoughts", does not exhibit that 
fluency and gracefulness of diction which, 
if his view of the matter were correct, 
would necessarily be displayed in his 
own compositions. 
A reviewer in 1 27ieJYbnco?iform.ist ' writes 
H 2 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

as follows: — "Away with all needless and 
" artificial rules, say we, indeed — as ener- 
getically as the most energetic. But 
"the elementary and natural laws of a 
" language fetter only the impatient or the 
"unskilful; and in the living freedom 
" with which genius obeys those laws, is 
" its strength and mastery shown. 

' The unchartered freedom tries,' 

"says Wordsworth, in vindicating the 
"self-imposed bondage of the Sonnet ; 
" and in so saying, he enunciated a prin- 
" ciple no less philosophically human than 
" wide in its application." 

What was John Milton's opinion on 
this subject? Was he opposed to rules 
and maxims? Did he think they served 
no other purpose than to "cramp the 
"expression of the thoughts"? Quite, 
the contrary. 

In the year 1638, Milton, in a Latin 
letter addressed to an Italian scholar who 
was then preparing a work on the gram- 
mar of his native tongue, wrote as follows : 
"Whoever in a state knows how to form 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 101 

" wisely the manners of men and to rule 
"them at home and in war by excellent 
"institutes, him in the first place, above 
"others, I should esteem worthy of all 
"honour; but next to him the man loho 
" strives to establish in maxims and rules 
u the method and habit of speaking and 
"writing derived from a good age of the 
" nation , an d, as it icere, to fortify the same 
"round with a hind ofioall, the daring to 
" overleap which, a law, only short of that 
" of Romidus, shoidd be used to prevent. 
" Should we choose to compare the two in 
"respect to utility, it is the former only 
" that can make the social existence of the 
"citizens just and holy; but it is the 
" latter, that makes it splendid and beauti- 
" ful, which is* the next thing to be desired. 
"The one, as I believe, supplies a noble 
" courage and intrepid counsels against an 
" enemy invading the territory ; the other 
"takes to himself the task of extirpating 
"and defeating, by means of a learned 
"detective police of ears and alight in- 
fantry of good authors, that barbarism 
"which makes large inroads upon the 



102 THE DEAX'S EXGLISE 

" minds of men, and is a destructive intes- 
"tine enemy to genius. Kor is it to be 
"considered of small importance what 
" language, pure or corrupt, a people has, 
" or what is their customary degree of pro- 
" priety in speaking it^-a matter which 
" oftener than once was the salvation of 
"Athens: nay, as it is Plato's opinion 
"that by a change in the manner and 
"habit of dress serious commotions and 
"mutations are portended in a common- 
" wealth, I, for my part, would rather 
"believe that the fall of that city and its 
"low and obscure condition followed on 
" the general vitiation of its usage in the 
" matter of speech ; for, let the words of a 
" country be in part unhandsome iand of- 
fensive in themselves, in part debased 
" by wear and wrongly uttered, and what 
" do they declare but, by no light indica- 
" tion, that the inhabitants of that country 
" are an indolent, idly-yawning race, with 
"minds already long prepared for any 
" amount of servility ? On the other hand, 
"we have never heard that any empire, 
" any state, did not flourish in at least a 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 103 

" middling degree as long as its own liking 
" and care for its language lasted." 

So far John Milton — the noble advocate 
of law and rule, though in virtue of the 
transcendency of his genius he might have 
claimed to be above all rules. Now let us 
have a specimen of your English, — the 
English of the Dean of Canterbury, whp, 
avowedly, disregards all rules, fearing they 
woutd il cramp the expression of his thoughts"! 

The following example is taken fromjjggj™ 
your third essay. I read, " 'this 9 and 'these 9 
" refer to persons and things present, or 
"under immediate consideration; 'that 9 
"and 'those 9 to persons and things not 
"present nor under immediate considera- 
tion; or, if either of these, one degree 
"•further removed than the others of which 
" are used ' this ' and ' these ' ". What can 
be the meaning of this last clause ? The 
reader can only wonder and guess. It 
utterly . defies all power of analysis, and 
really makes one uncomfortable to read it. 
It forcibly recalls the following anecdote An anecdote 
told of Douglas Jarrolcl. " On recovering jerroid! 
" from a severe illness, Browning's '/Sordello 9 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

" was put into his hands. Line after line, 
"page after page, he read, but no consecu- 
" tive idea could he get from the mystic 
"production. Mrs. Jerrold was out, and 
"he had no one to whom to appeal. The 
" thought struck him that he had lost his 
"reason during his illness, and that he 
" was so imbecile he did not know it. A 
"perspiration burst from his brow, and he 
" sat silent and thoughtful. As soon as 
"his wife returned, he thrust the mys- 
" terious volume into her hands, crying out, 
" ^Read this, my dear ' ! After several 
"attempts to make any sense out of the 
" first page or so, she gave back the book, 
" saying, ' Bother the gibberish ! I don't 
" ' understand a word of it \ i Thank 
" ' Heaven ', cried Jerrold, ' then I am not 
"' an idiot'"! 

1 The Edinburgh Review ' thus speaks of 
the poem: — "This poem is, in our judg- 
"ment, from its confused and tortuous 
"style -of expression, the most illegible 
"production of any time or country, 
" Every kind of obscurity is to be found 
" in it. Infinitives without their particles 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 105 

" — suppression of articles definite and 
"indefinite — confusion and suppression of 
"pronouns relative and personal — adjec- 
tives pining for their substantives — 
" verbs in an eternal state of suspense for 
"their subjects — elisions of every kind — 
"sentences prematurely killed oif by 
"interjections, or cut short in their 
, "career by other sentences — parentheses 
"within parentheses — prepositions some- 
" times entirely divorced froni^ their 
"nouns — cmacoloutha, and all kinds of 
"abnormal forms of speech, for which 
"grammarians have ever invented names 
" — oblique narrations, instead of direct — 
" and puzzling allusions to obscure persons 
" and facts disenterred from Muratori or 
" Tirabosc7ii, as though they were perfectly 
"familiar to the reader. Indeed, to be 
"compelled to look at a play through 
"a pair of horn spectacles would be a 
"cheerful pastime compared with the 
" ennui of tracing the course of i Sordello ' 
"through that veil of obscurity which 
"Mr. Browning's style of composition 
"places between us and his conception." 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

1 The Saturday Review] in commenting 
on these remarks, says, "It is but just to 
"Mr. Browning to state that the poem is 
"only a youthful sketch, and that Mr. 
"Browning himself has acknowledged its 
"many faults of expression, and has 
"explained why he thought it profitless to 
" try to rectify them." 
! Here is another specimen from your 
essay; I give the entire sentence, which, 
closing with a period, should be complete 
in its sense. You say, "The next thing 
"I shall mention, not for its own sake, 
"but as a specimen of the kind of criti- 
"cisni which I am often meeting with, 
" and instructive to those who wish to be 
"critics of other men's language." 

It was not until I had long and hope- 
lessly pondered over your sentence, that 
I discovered what it was you intended to 
say, and what was the reason of my not 
instantly catching your meaning. I find 
that the first clause in your sentence is 
inverted, and that the punctuation neces- 
sary to mark the inversion is incorrect, or 
rather, is altogether omitted : hence, I 



THE DEA2PS EXGLISH. 107 

read the sentence thus, — "The next tiling " 
[which] " I shall mention, not for its own 
" sake, but as a specimen," &c. ; whereas 
your meaning was,— "The next thing" [,] 
"I shall mention, not for its own sake, 
" but as a specimen," &c. ; or, putting the 
words in their natural order, "I shall 
"mention the next thing, not for its own 
"sake, but as a specimen," &c. Your 
hobby of leaving out commas carries you 
too far ; your readers cannot follow you : 
and if you are going to set aside the rules 
of punctuation as well as those of gram- 
mar, you must give us something better 
than this to convince us of the advantage 
to be gained by adopting such a course. 

Among other curious matters to bep e ^™* ed 
found in your essays, is the somewhat 
startling information that the expressions 
"IainH certain", "I ain't going", are not 
unfrequently used by " educated persons "! 
I suppose you mean, educated at college, 
where the study of English is altogether 
ignored ; but of that, more by-and-by. 
In the meantime I pass on to the next 
sentence in your essay. Having told us 



108 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

that the above expressions are not un- 
frequently used by " educated persons" '; 
you go on to say, " The main objection to 
" them is, that they are proscribed by usage ; 
"but exception may also be taken to them 
"on their own account". So I should 
think, if they to ill use such expressions as 
" I ain't certain ", " I ain't going ". 
"^Treated", j gee ^ QU gtiu gay . u trecite ^n rather 

"treated , _ ' ,, ,, - n 

of". than " treated of ; e.g. " a matter treated 

"in my former paper". On a previous 
occasion I spoke of this error; but I 
suppose, as you still express yourself in 
the same way, you consider the terms 
synonymous; but they certainly are not. 
To treat is one thing ; to treat of is 
another; and it is the latter expression 
that would convey your meaning. The 
following sentence will exhibit the dif- 
ference between the two terms. " A matter 
" treated of in my former paper was treated 
"by you with in difference." 

Ellipsis. One of the defects noticeable in your 

essays, is that of making your expressions 
too elliptical. Brevity is undoubtedly an 
excellent quality in writing; but brevity 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. V 

should always be subordinate to per- 
spicuity. This has not been attended to 
in the fqllowing sentence, which, singularly 
enough, happens to be upon the very 
subject of ellipsis itself. You say, " Some 
" languages are more elliptical than others ; 
"that is, the habits of thought of some 
" nations will bear the omission of certain 
"members of a sentence better than the 
" habits of thought of other nations " 
[id ill]. Do you not perceive that but" for 
the little word "wilt", which 1 have added 
to your sentence, the statement would be, 
that "the habits of thought of some 
" nations will bear the omission of certain 
" members of a sentence better than [they 
" will bear] the habits of thought of other 
"nations"? — a truth which no one will 
be found to deny; but, at the same time, 
a truth which you did not mean to 
affirm. 

The consequence of too free an indul- " Quack, 

quack ? " 

gence in the elliptical form of expres-^^ 
sion, would probably be that [in the 
language of every-day life, at any rate,] 
all connective words would gradually dis- 



110 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

appear from use ; and we should, perhaps, 
ultimately find ourselves, for "brevity's 
sake, adopting the style exenrplified in 
the anecdote given by Farrar, and which 
runs thus. — "An Englishman, in China, 
"seeing a dish placed before him, about 
" which he felt suspicious, and wishing 
"to know whether it was duck, said 
"with an interrogative accent, ' Quack , 
"' quack f He received the clear and 
"straightforward answer, ' Bow, icoio'f 
"This, no doubt was as good as the 
"most eloquent conversation on the same 
"subject between an Englishman and a 
" French waiter ; but I doubt whether it 
" deserves the name of language." * 
5PSaK» Among the peculiarities of style ob- 
servable in your essays is your evident 
fondness for feeble expletives which add 
nothing to the meaning of the sentences 
to which they are attached. You say, 
for instance, 

"I did not allude to the letter at 
"all". 

* Farrar's ' Origin of Language,' p. 74, as quoted 
in ilax Miiller's ' Lectures,'' p. 34(3. 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. Ill 

"Twice one not being plural at all". 

" Some found fault with rne for dealing 
" at all with the matter ". 

" Is it really part of the verb ' have ', 
"at all?" 

" If we use the past tense at all ". 

" Without any pains at all ". 

"The use of the plural verb at all is 
" unusual ". 

I should much like to know the origin 
of the phrase, and what difference in the 
meaning of any of the above sentences 
there would be if the words were struck 
out. 

Irishisms also should be avoided; for Irishisms : 

— '■'■and the 

" the Wee o' them'''' are anything but w*« "- 
pleasing in essays on the Queen's Eng- 
lish. 

You say, "Wrong understanding of 
" obsolete phrases and the like ". 

"Patrobas, Aristobulus and the like", 
"Making out that Andromache was An- 
" drew Mackay and the like ". 

"Such expressions as 'It is me', £ I 
" ' knew it to be him ', and the like ". 

"We continually hear and read 'This 



THE DEAN'S EXGLISII. 

'much I know', 'Of that much I am 
'certain', and the Wee". 
"To take it in good part, to take a 
man for his brother, and the like". 
"'Plain', 'soft', 'sweet', 'right', 
' wrong ', and the like". 
"I mean injny youth, or when I was 
in Cheshire, or the like". 
What ! Not yet over that ii 2 :)0ns asino- 
rum" of juvenile writers, the "con- 
struction louche"? You were there 
when I wrote to you my first letter ; and 
you are there still? This ought not to 
be ; for, the effect of this error is so 
ridiculous, and the error itself may be 
so easily avoided. You say, " Though 
"some of the European rulers may be 
" females, when spoken of altogether ', they 
" may be correctly classified under the 
"denomination 'kings'." In this sen- 
tence, the clause which I have put in 
italics has, what our Gallic neighbours 
designate, "a squinting construction", it 
looks two ways at once; that is, it may 
be construed as relating to the words 
which precede, or to those which follow. 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 113 

Your former error of this sort was in the 
omission of a comma ; this time you have 
erred by the insertion of a comma, and in 
each case a like result is produced. Had 
there been no comma after the word 
"altogether", the ambiguity would have 
been avoided, because the words in italics 
would then have formed part of the 
last clause of the sentence : but as the 
italicised clause is isolated by commas, 
the sentence is as perfect a specimen of ■ 
this error as ever could have been given. 
Absurd as would be the sentence, its con- 
struction is such, that we may understand 
you to say, " Some of the European rulers 
"may be females when spoken of alto- 
" gether ' ; or • we may understand you 
to say, " when spoken of altogether, they 
"may be correctly classified under the 
" denomination ' kings '" ; but, even in 
this last clause, it is evident that you say 
one thins; and mean another. The con- The differ- 

ence be- 

text shows that what you meant, was, £j^j£jgj 
" they may correctly be classified ", not JJd^may ' 
" they may be correctly classified ".- Slight classified". 
as is the apparent difference here, the real 

I 



114 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

difference is very great. If I say, " they 
"may be correctly classified", my words 
mean that the classification may be made 
in a correct manner; but if I say, "they 
" may correctly be classified ", the meaning 
is, that it is correct to classify them. In 
the first example, the adverb qualifies the 
past participle " classified " ; in the second, 
it qualifies the passive verb to "be clas- 
sified"; or, in other words, the adverb 
in the former instance describes the thing 
as being properly done ; and, in the latter 
instance, as being a thing proper to do. 
The Dean One word more before we finish with 

calls Her 

female" *^ s stran o e sentence of yours. On j)age 
65 I had to ask you why, when speak- 
ing of a man, you used the slang word 
"individual". I have here, to ask you a 
question which is still graver. — Why, 
when speaking of women, do you apply 
to them the most debasing of all slang 
expressions ? You speak of the highest 
person in the land, and that person a lady, 
and your description of her is one that is 
equally applicable to a dog ! — Her Majesty 
is — a female ! I am sure that all who 



THE DEA2TS EXGL1SH. 115 

desire your welfare will join me in hoping 
that Her Majesty will not see your book. 
It is but too evident that in condemning 
these slang phrases, as you do in your 
.' Queen's English', page 246, you are 
echoing the sentiments of some other 
writer, rather than expressing your own 
abhorrence of slang. I shall be glad if 
you are able to inform me that I am mis- 
taken in this particular ; and that you 
have not been quoting, but have been 
giving us original matter. 
Reverting to the error occasioned by a Tlie import, 

° •> ance of cor- 

comma in the former part of your Ben-J^JS™ 6 " 
tence, I may give, as another example of 
the importance of correct punctuation, 
an extract from a letter in 'The Times'* of 
June 19th, 1863; there, simply by the 
placing of the smallest point, a comma, 
before, instead of after, one of the smallest 
words in the language, the word "on", 
the whole meaning of the sentence is 
entirely altered, and it is made to express 
something so horrible that the reader 
shudders at the mere suggestion of it. 
The letter is on American affairs, and 
I 2 



116 THE DEA2PS ENGLISH. 

the writer says, "The loss of life will 

" hardly fall short of a quarter of a million ; 

"and how many more were better with 

" the dead than doomed to crawl, on the 

"mutilated victims of this great national 

"crime" ! He meant to say — " than doomed 

. " to crawl on, the mutilated victims of this 

" great national crime." 

"in a fix". But I must hasten to the conclusion of 

my letter. You say, " The derivation of 

"the word, as well as the usage of the 

"great majority of English writers, fix 

"the spelling the other way", i.e. This 

(as well as that) fix it ! Excuse me, hut 

I must ask you why you write thus, even 

though by putting the question, I put 

you " in a fix " to answer it. 

ThQjtnai You speak of " the final 'u' in tenour " 

"tenour" and 'the final 's' in months". You 

andthejinal 

« a " l ?». „ miodit just as reasonably speak of the 

"months . a " J t, 

final "a" in the alphabet. 

These errors are so gross that I cannot 
forbear reproving you in your own words. 
" Surely it is an ev il for a people to be daily 
" accustomed to readEnglish expressed thus 
" obscurely and ungrammatically : it tends 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 117 

"to confuse thought, and to deprive lan- 
" guage of its proper force, and by this 
" means to degrade us as a nation in the 
" rank of thinkers and speakers." 
In your second essay you are loud in Variety not 

always 

praise of variety in composition ; and " ° h * rm - 
variety enough you undoubtedly have 
given us ; but, unfortunately, the variety 
is not of that description which, in our 
school days, writing-masters made us 
describe in our copy-books as " charming ". 
We have found, in your Essays on the 
Queen's English, errors in the use of 
pronouns ; errors in the use of nouns, 
both substantive and adjective ; errors 
in the use of verbs and of adverbs ; and 
errors in the use of prepositions. There 
are errors in composition, and errors in 
punctuation ; errors of ellipsis, and errors 
of redundancy ; specimens of feeble ex- 
pletives, and specimens of circumlocution ; 
specimens of ambiguity, and specimens 
of squinting constructions ; specimens of 
slang, and specimens of misquotation of an 
opponent's words ; and, worst of all, a 
specimen of a misquotation of Scripture. 
Add to this the following specimens of 



118 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

tautology and tautophony, and the list 

will, I think, be tolerably complete. 

Tautology As you have introduced into your' 
and tautoph- 
ony. essays the short preface to your Poems, 

that preface becomes fairly amenable to 

criticism, and I remark that in it you say, 

" This will account for a few specimens of 

"Transatlantic orthography for which the- 

" author must not be accounted responsible". 

The following is from your third essay, 

— "An officer whose duty it is to keej) a 

■ " counter-roll, or check on the accounts of 

"others. It seems also clear, from this 

"account of the word, that it ought not," &c. 

Then I read, "One word on 'this' 
"and 'that', as we pass onward". 

"At last we abated the nuisance by 
"enacting, that in future the debatable 
"first syllable should be dropped". 

"Thought and speech have ever been 
" freer in England than in other countries. 
"From these and other circumstances, 
"the English language has become more 
" idiomatic than most others ". 

" The sentences which I have quoted are 
" but a few out of the countless ^wstances 
"in our best writers, and in their most 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 119 

" chaste and beautiful passages, in which 
"this usage occurs. On examining into 
"it, we find"— &c. &c. 

Enough ! It was my intention to say a 
few words of caution to students of the 
Queen's English, on your advice to them 
to disregard the rules of grammarians and 
"be guided by custom and common sense ; 
but, on second thoughts, I am sure that 
any further remarks must be unnecessary ; 
for if your j)lan cannot do more for its 
teacher, there need be no fear that it will 
be followed by any sagacious pupil. 

I had fully intended to speak also on 
the necessity of a more thorough study 
of English at our Universities ; but any 
remarks on that, will likewise be con- 
sidered needless; for, your own English 
is, itself, a volume on the subject.* 

* " To such as can hardly believe, that in our 
"Public Schools, Colleges, and Universities, there 
"is not the slightest special training in English, 
* even for those who are about to enter Holy Orders, 
" I can only say that, 'however surprising it may 
" seem, it is the simple fact." " Some have said, 
" that no English teaching is needed in our Univer- 
sities, for men are sufficiently instructed in the 



120 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

Ah ! Doctor Alford, we find you guilty 

' language when they ' come up \ I meet this by a 

simple denial, adding that most men are not suffi- 
' ciently instructed even when they ' go down \ I 
'appeal to College Tutors, Examiners, Bishops' 
' Chaplains, and to the Public, whether I exaggerate 
1 or not in making this assertion." — '■A Plea for the 
Study of the English Language \ by Alexander J. D 
D'Orsey, b.d., English Lecturer at the Corpug 
Christi College, Cambridge, pp. 2, 2*1. 

Eead also the '■Report of Her Majesty's Com- 
< missioners appointed to inquire into the manage- 
' ment of certain Colleges and Schools ". (Presented 
to Parliament by command of Her Majesty, March, 
1864.) The following is from the Report of the exam- 
ination of the head master of Eton, " the greatest 
" and most influential of our Public Schools." 

Question, No. 3530, [Lord Clarendon]. " What 
" measures do you now take to keep up English at 
" Eton ? " — > " There are none at present, except 
" through the ancient languages." 

Question, No. 3531. " You can scarcely learn 
" English reading and writing through Thucydides ? '» 
"—No." . 

Question, No. 3532, [Sir S. NorthcoteJ. "You 
" do not think it is satisfactory ? " — " No ; the 
"English teaching is not satisfactory, and as a 
"question of precedence, I would have English 
''taught before French." 

Question, No. 3533. " You do not consider that 
*' English is taught at present ? " — " No. 11 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 121 

of injuring by your example a glorious 

"la Greek and Latin, no doubt, the clergy have 
11 advanced as fast as their age, or faster. University 
"men now write Greek Iambics, as every one 
" knows, rather better than Sophocles, and would 
"no more think of violating the Pause than of 
"violating an oath. A good proportion of them 
"are also perfectly at home in the calculation 
" of perihelions, nodes, mean motions, and other 
"interesting things of the same kind, which it 
" is unnecessary to specify more particularly. So 
"far the clergy are at least on a level with 
" their age. But this is all that can be said. 
" When we come to their mother-tongue a dif- 
"ferent story is to be told. Their English — the 
" English of their sermons — is nearly where it was a 
"hundred years ago. The author of ' Twenty years 
" ' in the Church ' makes the driver of a coach remark 
" to his hero, that young gentlemen from college pre- 
" paring to take orders appear to have learned 
" everything except their own language. And so 
" they have. Exceptions, of course, there are, many 
" and bright ; but in the main the charge is true. 
" The things in which, compared with former ages, 
" they excel so conspicuously, are the very things 
" which have least concern with their special calling. 
"The course of their progress has reversed the 
" course of charity ; — it began abroad, and has never 
"yet reached home." — l Comhill Magazine,' 1 May, 
1861. 



122 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

inheritance, such as has been bequeathed 
to no other nation under heaven.* 

I can believe that the English language 
is destined to be that in which shall arise, 
as in one universal temple, the utterance 
of the worship of all hearts. Broad and 
deep have the foundations been laid; and 
so vast is the area which they cover, that 
it is co-extensive with the great globe itself. 
For centuries past, proud intellectual giants 
have laboured at this mighty fabric; 
and still it rises, and will rise for genera- 
tions to come : and on its massive stones 
will be inscribed the names of the pro- 
foundest thinkers, and on its springing 
arches the records, of the most daring 
flights of the master minds of genius, whose 
fame was made enduring by their love of 
the Beautiful and their adoration of the All 
Good. In this temple the Anglo-Saxon 

* Grimm says, "The English tongue possesses a 
"veritable power of expression, such as, perhaps, 
" never stood at the command of any other language 
''of man." — ' Ursprung der Sprache? p. 52. 

" Take it all in all, it is the grandest and the 
" richest of modern tongues." — ' Edinburgh Review f 
July, 1864, p. 176. 



THE LEANS ENGLISH. 123 

mosaic of the sacred words of truth will 
be the solid and enduring pavement ; the 
dreams of poets will fill the rich tracery 
of its windows with the many-coloured 
hues of thought; and the works of lofty 
philosophic minds will be the stately 
columns supporting its fretted roof, whence 
shall hang, sculptured, the rich fruits of 
the tree of knowledge, precious as " apples 
" of gold ", — " the words of the wise ". 

I am, Rev. Sir, 

Yours most respectfully, 

G. WASHINGTON MOON. 

London, May, 1864. 



"Ouram verborum rerum volo esse solici- 
64 tudinera." — Quintilian. 



EXAMPLE versus PRECEPT. 



The Dean said [' Good Words ', 1883, page 
437] "The less you turn your words right or 
"left to observe Mr. Moo?i's rides, the better". 
It will provoke a smile on the face of the 
reader to be told that although the Dean 
gives this advice to others, he himself has, in 
the second edition of his work, altered and 
struck out, altogether not fewer than eight- 
and-twenty passages which Mr. Moon had 
condemned as faulty. For the entertainment 
of the curious in such matters, the original 
passages as condemned in c The Dean's 
4 English ', and the same passages as altered in 
the second edition of '•The Queen 's English ', 
are subjoined in parallel columns. It is 
scarcely requisite to say that " altered " does 
not necessarily imply " corrected ". 



126 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 



THE 
QUEEN'S ENGLISH. 



I. 

So far from its being "so 
"well known a fact" that we 
reserve the singular pronouns 
"thou" and "thee" entirely 
for our addresses in prayer to 
Him who is the highest Per- 
sonality, it is not a fact. — p. 7. - 



Struck out. 



II. 

You say, " The great enemies 
" to understanding anything 
" printed in our language are 
"the commas. And these are 
"inserted by the compositors 
"without the slightest com- 
" punction," I should say that 
the great enemy to our under- 
standing this sentence of yours 
is the want of commas. — p. 11. 



A comma in- 
serted between 
" compositors " 
and "without 
" the slightest 
" compunction ". 
—p. 99. 



III. 

You speak of persons " mend- 
" ing their " ways "; and in the 
very next paragraph you speak 
of " the Queen's highway ", 
and of " by-roads " and ll pri- 
" vate roads ". — p. 12. 



Struck out. 



THE DEA1TS ENGLISH. 



Struck out. 



THE 
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. QUEERS ENGLISH. 

IV. 

Immediately after your speak- 
ing of " things without life ", 
you startle us with that strange 
sentence of yours, — " I will 
"introduce the body of my 
" essay ". Introduce the tody ! 
—p. 13. 

V. 

" But to be more serious ", 
as you say in your essay, and 
then immediately give us a sen- 
tence in which the grave and 
the grotesque are most incon- 
gruously blended. I read, " A In the papers, a 
"man does not lose Ms mother man does not now 
"now in the papers." I have lose his mother. — 
read figurative language which p. 251 
spoke of lawyers being lost in 
their papers, and students be- 
ing buried in their books ; but 
I never read of a man losing 
his mother in the papers. — p. 
13. 

VI. 

In the sentence, "I only 
" "bring forward some things ", 
tlie adverb "only" is similarly 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 



THE 
QUEEN'S ENGLISH. 



Struck out 



THE DEAN S ENGLISH. 

misplaced : for, in the following 
sentence, the words "Plenty 
"more might be said", show 
that the "only" refers to the 
" some things ", and not to the 
fact of your bringing them for- 
ward. The sentence should 
therefore have been, "I bring 
"forward some things only", 
—p. 15. 



VII. 

In your essay, you say, "I 
"remember, when the French 
"band of the ' Guides 1 icere I remember, when 
" in this country, reading in the French band of 
" the ' Illustrated News ' ". the ' Guides ' were 
Were the Frenchmen, when in in this country, to 
this country, reading in i The have read in the 
1 Illustrated Neics ' f or did you * Illustrated News '. 
mean that you remembered — p. 249. 
reading in ' The Illustrated 
'News' ?— p. 19. 



VIII. 

You also say, " It is not so 
"much of the great highway 
" itself of the Queen's English 
" that I would now speak, as of 
"some of the laws of the road ; 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 



THE 
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. QUEEN'S ENGLISH. 



" the oy -rules, to compare small 
" things with great, ichich hang 
" vp framed at the various sta- 
"tions". What are the great ^ ^^"^ 

things which hang up framed ^ g 

at the various stations ? — p. 20. 



The by-rules, so 
to spealc, which 
hang up framed at 



IX. 

So, too, in that sentence 
which introduces the oody of 
your essay, you speak of " the 
" reluctance ichich we in modern 
" Europe have to giving any 
"prominence to the personality 
" of single individuals in social 
"intercourse''' ; and yet it was Struck out. 
evidently not of single indi- 
viduals in social intercourse 
that 3'ou intended to speak, but 
of giving, in social intercourse, 
any prominence to the person- 
ality of single individuals. — p. 
20. 

X. 

Continuing my review of your 
essay, I notice that it is said of 
a traveller on the Queen's high- 
way, "He ooiols along it with 
" ease in a vehicle, which a few 
"centuries ago would have oeen 



130 THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

THE 
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. QUEERS ENGLISH. 

" broken to pieces in a deep rut,, 
" or come to grief in a 'bottom- He bowls along 

''•less swamp". There being it with ease in a 

here no words immediately be- vehicle, which a 

fore " come ", to indicate in few centuries ago 

what tense that verb is, I have would have been 

to turn back to find the tense, broken to pieces 

and am obliged to read the in a deep rut, or 

sentence thus, " would have would have, come 

" been broken to pieces in a to grief in . a bot- 

" deep rut, or [would have been] tomless swamp. — 

" come to grief in a bottomless p. 2. 
, " swamp ". — p. 28. 

XT. 

Further on, I find you speak- 
ing of " that fertile source of 
"mistalces among our clergy, 
" the mispronunciation of Scrip- 
u ture proper names". It is 
not the " mispronunciation of 
"Scripture proper names" 
which is the source of mistakes ; Struck out. 
the mispronunciation of Scrip- 
ture proper names constitutes 
the mistakes themselves of 
which you are speaking; and 
a thing cannot at the same time 
be a source, and that which 
flows from it. — p. 29. 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 131 

THE 
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. QUEEN'S ENGLISII. 

XII. 

In some sentences your pro- 
nouns have actually no nouns 
to which they apply. For ex- 
ample, you say, "a journal A journal pub- 
"puolhshed by these people". Hshed by the ad- 
Ly what people ? Where is the vocates of this 
noun to which this relative change. — p. 14. 
pronoun refers ? In your head 
it may have been, but it cer- 
tainly is not in your essay. — p. 
35. 

XIII. 

Only eight-and-twenty nouns The paragraph 

intervening between the pro- has been entirely 

noun "ii" and the noun "habit" reconstructed. — p. 

to which it refers!— p. 37. 42. 



In the English 
version of the Bi- 
ble, made in its 
present authorized 



XI7. 

You make the assertion that 
the possessive pronoun " its " 
never occurs in the " English 
"version of the Bible". Look 

"at Leviticus xxv, 5, "That „ 

.. , . , ., ~ ._, form in the reign 

" which groweth of its own . ' T \, 

u ^ >? o^r °f James ■*• — P- 7. 

"accord".— p. 37. J l 

XV. 

There are, in your second 
essay, some very strange speci- 

K 2 



132 



THE DEANS ENGLISH. 



TIIE DEAN S ENGLISH. 

mens of Queen's English. You 
saj 7- , "The one rule, of all others, 
"which, he cites". Now as, in 
defence of 3-our particular 
views, you appeal so largely to 
common sense, let me ask, in 
the name of that common sense, 
how can one thing be another 
thing ? How can one rule be of 
all other rules the one which I 
cite ? — p. 54. 



THE 
QUEEN'S ENGLISH. 

The one rule 
which is supposed 
by the ordinary 
rhetoricians to re- 
gulate the arrange- 
ment of. words in 
sentences, is, &c. — 
p. 123. 



XVI. 

You say, " The verb is not 
"a strict neuter-substantive". 
Your sentence is an explanation 
of your use of the word "oddly", 
in the phrase, " would read 
"rather oddly"; and oddly 
enough you have explained it : 
"would read" is the condi- 
tional form of the verb ; and 
how can that ever be either a 
neuter-substantive, or a substan- 
tive of any other kind? — p. 56. 

XVII. 

Again, you say, " The whole 
" number is divided into two 
" classes : the first class, and the 
" last class. To the former of 



In a previous 
paragraph we now 
read of a verb, " of 
that class called 
neuter - substantive, 
i.e., neuter, and 
akin in construc- 
tion to the verb- 
substantive to be". 
—p. 206. 



To the former of 
these belong three : 



THE DEANS ENGLISH. 

TIIE 
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. QUEEN'S ENGLISH. 

" these belong three : to the lat- 

" ter, one"". That is, "To the 

" former of these belong three : 

11 to the latter [belong] one ' 

one belong ! When, in the latter 

, c , , to the latter belongs 

part of a compound sentence, * 

, ,, ... one. — p. 146. 

we change the nominative, we r 

must likewise change the verb, 

that it may agree with its 

nominative. — p. 57. 

XVIII. 

The error is repeated in the 
very next sentence. You say, 

" There are three that are ranged There are three 

"under the description l first 1 : that are ranged 

" and one that is ranged under under the descrip- 

" the description l last 1 ". That tion ' first ' ; and 

is, " There are three that are there is one that is 

"ranged under the description ranged under the 

"'first'; and [there are] one description 'last'. 

" that is ranged under the des- — p. 146. 
"cription 'last'". There are 
one ! — p. 57. 

XIX. 

It appears to me that, before 
you have finished a sentence, 
you have forgotten how you 



THE HE AX'S EXGLISH. 



THE DEANS ENGLISH. 



, THE 
QUEENS ENGLISH. 



b3gan it. Here is another in- 
stance. You say, " We call a 
" l cup-board' a ' cu~b~bard\ a 
" l halfpenny ' a l haepenny% 
" and so of many other com- 
" pound words". Had you be- 
gun your sentence thus, " We 
"speak of a 'cup-board' as a 
' cubbard', of a 'half-penny' as 
a 'haepenny', it would have 
been correct to say, " and so of 
" many other compound words' 1 ; 
because the clause would mean, 
"and so [ice speak] of many 
" other compound words"; but 
having begun the sentence with 
" We call" it is sheer nonsense 
to finish it with " and so of"; 
for it is saying, "and so [we 
" call] of many other com- 
" pound words". — p. 58. 



We call a ' cup- 
' board ' a ' cub- 
'bard', a ' half- 
' penny' a ' hae- 
' pny ', and ice 
similarly contract 
many other com- 
pound words. — p. 
53. 



XX 

You speak of rules laid down 
' : by the dictionaries" and the 
"professors of rhetoric' 1 ''; thus 
substituting, in one case, the 
works for the men ; and, in the 
other case, speaking of the men 
themselves. Why not either 



THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 

the 
the dean's english. queen's english. 

speak of the " compilers of dic- 

" tionaries" and the " jwofessors 

"of rhetoric' 1 ; or else speak 

of the "dictionaries" and the Struck out. 

" treatises on rhetoric" ? — p. 59* 

XXI. 

The construction of some of 
your sentences is very objec- 
tionable : you say, "/ have 
"noticed the. word ''party'' used 
"for an individual, occurring The word 'party', 
"in, Shalspeare"; instead of, for a man, occurs 
"I have noticed, in Shak- i n Shakspearc.— 
" speare, the word ' party ' used p. 246. 
" for an individual." But how 
is it that you call a man "an 
"individual"? — p. 05. 

XXTI. 

You sa} r , " While treating of 
" the pronunciation of those 
" who minister in public, two t 

"other words occur to me 
" which are very commonly 
" mangled by our clergy. One 
"of these is 'covetous', and its 
" substantive ' covetousness '. 
" I hope some who read these 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

THE 
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. QUEEN'S ENGLISH. 

" lines will be induced to leave I hope that some 

"off pronouncing them 'cove- of my clerical read- 

"'tious* and ' covetiousness '. ers will be induced 

" I can assure them, that when to leave off pro- 

"they do thus call them, one. nouncing them 'co- 

"at least, of their hearers hfis 'vetious' and ' co- 

" his appreciation of their teach- ' vetiousness \ I 

u ing disturbed". I fancy that can assure them, 

many a one who reads these that when they do 

lines will have his appreciation thus call the words, 

of your teaching disturbed. — &c. — p. 63. 
p. 69. 

XXTIT. 

Speaking of the word "its", 

you say, "Its apparent occur- 

"renee in the place quoted, is 

" simply due to the Kinds ~ . 

./ , , 7 . , Struck out 

"printers, who have modernised 

" the passage ". Apparent oc. 
currence ! It is a real occur- 
rence. Are we not to believe 
our eyes ? — p. 80. 

• XXIV. 

As for the " King" s printers" , 
it was not they who introduced 
the word "its" into the Eng- 
lish Bible. The first English 
Bible in which the word is 



THE BEAD'S ENGLISH. 

THE 
THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. QUEEN'S ENGLISH. 

found, is one that was printed 
at a time when there was no 
King on the English throne, An alteration by 
consequently when there were ^ l€ printers. — p. y. 
no "King's printers": it was 
printed during the Common- 
wealth.— p. 80. 

XXV. 

The following is, if inten- 
tional, which I cannot believe, 
the boldest instance of mis- 
quotation of Scripture, to suit 
a special purpose, that I ever 
met with. You say, " In Num- 
bers xii, 2, we read, 'Hath 
" ' the Lord only spolcen by 
" ' Moses ? hath He not spoken 
" ' also by us V According to 
" some of my correspondents, 
"and to Mr. Moon's pamphlet, 
4 this ought to be ' Hath the 
4 'Lord spoken only by Moses?' 
4 1 venture to prefer very much 
••'the words as they stand". 
Now, strange as it may appear 
after your assertion, it is never- 
theless a fact that the words, as 
you quote them, do not occur 
in the authorized version, known 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

THE 
TIIE DEAN'S ENGLISH. QUEEN'S ENGLISH. 

as King James's Bible of 1611, 
or in our present version, or in 
%ny other version I have ever 
seen ; and the words, in the 
order in which you say I 
and your other correspondents 
would have written them, do The Dean found 
occur in every copy of the another passage, 
Scriptures to which I have which suited his 
referred! So you very much purpose, and quo- 
prefer the words as they stand, ted it. — p. 143. 
do you ? Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! So do 
I. When next you write about 
the adverb "only", be sure 
you quote only the right pas- 
sage of Scripture to suit your 
purpose. — p. 82. 



XXYI. 

"Though some of the Euro- 
pean rulers may be females, 
"when spo~ken of altogether, 
"they may be correctly classi- 
" fied under the denomination 

kings'". In this sentence, 
the clause which I have put in 
italics has, what our Gallic 
neighbours designate, "a squin- 
" ting construction", it looks 



THE BEATS EXGL1SII. 

THE 

TITE DEAN'S ENGLISH. QUEEN'S ENGLISH. 

two ways at once ; that is, it Though some of 

may be construed as relating to the European ru- 

the words which precede, or to lers may be fe- 

those which follow. Absurd as males, they may 

would be the sentence, its con- be correctly chssi- 

struction is such, that we may fled, when spoken 

understand you to sa}', "Some of altogether, un- 

" of the European rulers may der the denomina- 

" be females, when spoken of tion " kings ". — p. 

" altogether."— p. 112. 97. 

XXVII. 

You say, " The derivation of 
" the icord, as icell as the usage The derivation 
" of the great majority of Eng- of the word, as 
" lish writers, fix, the the spelling well as the usage 
"the other w ay ". i.e. This [as of the great ma- 
well as that] fix it! Excuse jority of English 
me, but I must ask you why writers, fixes the 
you write thus, even though by spelling the other 
putting the question, I put you way. — p. 33. 
"in a fix" to answer it. — ■ 
p. 110. 

XXVIII. 

" At last we abated the At last we abated 

"nuisance by enacting, that the nuisance by 

"in future the debatable first enacting that in 

" syllable should be dropped ". future the first syl- 

_p. 118. lable should be 
dropped. — p. 56. 



140 THE BEAN'S ENGLISH. 

Of course the Dean was wise to alter 
his sentences ; — to turn his words right and 
left in observance of certain rules. The 
joke is, that he should do so after having 
advised his readers to do nothing of the 
sort. We congratulate the Dean that, con- 
cerning the alteration of sentences, we are 
able in his case to reverse the old adage and 
say, "Do as the Dean does^ and not as the 
" Dean says." 



APPENDIX. 



A Criticism from The Exglisii 
Churchman. 

The Queen 's English. Stray Notes on 
Speaking and Spelling. By Henry 
Alford, d.d., Dean of Canterbury. 
(London : Strahan and Co. ; Deigton, 
Bell, and Co., pp. 257.) 

We scarcely know whether to look upon the 
labours of Dean Alford in the cause of our 
language as a loss or as a gain. In- many ways 
his remarks on the Queen's English must have 
been attended with good results. The wide 
circulation which they obtained, when first 
published in ' Good Words ', has caused a vast 
number of persons to pay far more attention 
to this much-neglected subject than they had 
ever done before. Many have been brought 
for the first time to bestow a serious attention 
on their mother-tongue, and to see that the 
consideration of the words in which their 
thoughts are clothed is a matter of no small 



142 OPIXIOXS OF THE PRESS. 

moment, and furnishes a true test of a nation's 
character and progress. In these papers they 
have been warned against the use of mean and 
slipshod English, against an affected and un- 
natural style, and, in fact, against most of the 
faults which mar the language of the present 
day, and which may be found so abundant in 
the columns of the periodical press, and in the 
conversation of half-educated persons. On 
the other hand, the Dean has set an evil ex- 
ample by rendering the standard of right and 
wrong in language more wavering and un- 
certain than ever : custom, according to him, 
is the only court of appeal, and the laws of 
grammar are to be left to pedants and peda- 
gogues. If this is to be the case, it seems 
hopeless to bring many of those, who habitu- 
ally break the laws of language, to a sense of 
their shortcomings. They have been brought 
up from their birth amongst persons who com- 
vuit the same faults, and they are unable to 
see the nature of these faults. If referred to 
the laws of grammar, they appeal to the au- 
thority of Dean Alford to show that it is 
pedantic to be guided by grammarians ; if 
referred to the custom of educated persons, 
they maintain their own experience against that 
of their reprovers, and declare that their own 
usage is the customary one, and that the one 
recommended to them is contrary to custom. 

Amongst the paradoxical statements of Dean 
Alford, we have selected some of the most 
prominent for comment. At the time of the 



OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 

first appearance of these papers, a great, and, 
in our opinion, not unreasonable, outcry was 
made against the sanctioning of the phrase, 
"It is me". The Dean brings forth Dr. La- 
tham in support of his opinion, and refers us 
to the following extract from that gentleman's 
'■History of the English Language'' : — 

"We may call the word me a secondary nomi- 
native, inasmuch as such phrases as It is me — It is I, 
are common. To call such expressions incorrect Eng- 
lish, is to assume the point. No one says that c'est moi 
is had French, and c'est je is good. The fact is, that 
with us the whole question is a question of degree. 
lias or has not the custom been sufficiently prevalent 
to have transferred the forms me, ye, and you, from 
one case to another ? Or perhaps we may say, is there 
any real custom at all in favour of /, except so far as 
the grammarians have made one ? It is clear that the 
French analogy is against it. It is also clear that the 
personal pronoun as a predicate may be in a different 
analogy from the personal pronoun as a subject''. 

We have great respect for Dr. Latham's 
learning, but in a matter like the present we 
cannot submit to his authority. Modern wri- 
ters on language, when treating of well-known 
words and phrases, are often apt to seek op- 
portunities for displaying their own ingenuity 
in giving unusual explanations of them, and 
Dr. Latham is by no means free from a par- 
tiality for crotchets of this kind. There is no 
analogy between English and French in this 
matter. It is a peculiarity of the French 
language that each pair of words which repre- 



Hi OPIXIONS OF THE PRESS. 

sents the different cases of the singular personal 
pronouns iii other languages is in French 
represented by three words instead of two. 
I, me— je, me, moi ; thou, thee — tu, te, toi ; 
he, him — il, le, lid. Moi, toi, lui, are used as 
nominative cases when coming after the verb 
If Dr. Latham's reasoning is right, that be 
cause we have in French c'est moi, not c'est ji 
therefore, it is right to say in English, "it is 
"me", not "it is I": then it follows that 
because we say c'est toi, not c'est tu, c'est lui, 
not c'est il, it is right to say "it is thee", "it 
"is him", or "her". It seems to us as bad 
grammar to say, "it is me", in English, as c'est 
me in French. He further says that " when 
" constructions are predicative, a change is 
" what we must expect rather than be surprised 
"at". We see this change of construction in 
French when the pronouns are predicative, 
because each pronoun has three distinct forms, 
but as English, together with the rest of the 
European languages (with which we are ac- 
quainted), has only two forms of personal 
pronouns, therefore the change cannot take 
place when the construction is predicative. 
Another reason given by Dr. Latham for the 
usage is, that me is not the proper, but only the 
adopted accusative of /, * being in fact a 
" distinct and independent form of the personal 
"pronoun". We do not see why, because me 
is the adopted accusative of I, it should become 
"a secondary nominative " . All the European 
languages of which we have any knowledge 



OPIXIOXS OF THE PRESS. 145 

have an adopted accusative for the first person 
singular, but we do not find in them any traces 
of its being used as a secondary nominative 
(though it may appear so in French) ; why, 
then, are we to grant this license to English, 
merely to gratify a careless habit which may 
easily be corrected ? Wo now come to consider 
Dean Alford's own remarks on these three little 
words. He seems to think that the reason for 
the substitution of me for I is a shrinking from 
obtruding our own personality, and endeavours 
to confirm his view by referring to an instance 
of the contrary practice in the well-known 
passage : — 

" He said unto them, ' It is I, he not afraid' . This is 
a capital instance ; for it us shows at once why the 
nominative should be sometimes used. The Majesty 
of the Speaker here, and his purpose of re-assuring the 
disciples by the assertion that it was none other than 
Himself, at once point out to us the case in which it 
would be proper for the nominative, and not the ac- 
cusative to be used". 

We will venture to say that the sole reason 
which the translators of the Bible had for writ- 
ing u it is I" in this verse, was because they 
considered it the proper grammatical phrase, 
and "it is me" ungrammatical. How would 
Dean Alford account for the two following 
verses, Matt. xxvi. 22, 25, "And they were ex- 
" ceeding sorrowful, and began every one of 
" them to say unto Him, Lord, is it I ? " " Then 
"Judas, which betrayed him, answered and 



OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 

"said, Master, is it I?" Certainty, according 
to the Dean's reasoning, we ought in each case 
to have, "Is it me?" but there is no trace of 
such a usage throughout the Bible. 

Dean Alford asks the question, "What are we 
" to think of the question whether than does or 
" does not govern an accusative case ? " — 

" The fact is, that there are two ways of constructing 
a clause with a comparative and ' than,'. You may say 
either 'than Z J or 'tha?ime\ If you say the former, 
you use what is called an elliptical expression, i.e. an 
expression in which something is left out — and that 
something is the verb ' am\ 'He is wiser than I', 
being filled out, would be, ' He is wiser than I am '. 
' He is wiser than me ' is the direct and complete con- 
struction". 

We agree that there are two ways of con- 
structing the clause — a right way and a wrong 
way. " He is wiser than I " is right. " He is 
" wiser than me " is wrong. There is no occa- 
sion to make use of an ellipse at all. Than is 
a conjunction, and cannot, therefore, govern an 
accusative case, as it is a fundamental rule of all 
languages that conjunctions should couple like 
cases. We cannot see in what way "He is 
" wiser than me " can be more complete than 
" He is wiser than I " . Again, we find the rule 
laid down by the .Dean, that, when solemnity is 
required, the construction in the nominative is 
used; and he quotes John xiv. 28, "My father 
"is greater than I". This would be of some 
weight if he could bring a single instance in 
which than of itself governed an accusative in 



0PIX10XS OF THE PRESS. A 47 

a case where solemnity was not required, but 
we do not think that he will find one in the 
Bible. In Gen. xxxix. 8, Joseph says to 
Potiphar's wife, "Behold, lny master knoweth 
" not what is with me in the house, and he hath 
" committed all that he hath to my hand ; there 
" is none greater in the house than I ; neither 
"hath he kept back", &c. "We cannot suppose 
that the translators wished to represent Joseph 
as attaching any solemnity to the words " there 
"is none greater than I", which are introduced 
in the middle of a long sentence. The reason 
for their occurring thus is because the transla- 
tors knew that the phrase, " there is none greater 
"than me", is entirely ungrammatical. Dean 
Alford considers that tlie invariable use of 
"than whom", instead of "than who", is a 
proof that than governs an accusative case, as in 
''Paradise Lost\ ii. 299: — 

" "Which when Beelzebub perceived, than whom, 
"Satan except, none higher sat". 

We quite agree that, to say " than who " , 
would be intolerable in this instance to most 
ears, but we do not consider that this single 
anomalous expression is enough to warrant us 
in saying that "than" takes the accusative. 
The expressions " than whom " , " than which " , 
are very sparingly used in writing, and never 
in ordinary conversation. Probably the first 
person who wrote "than whom", did so in 
ignorance of the rules of grammar, and the 
error was so perpetuated by his copyists that it 

L 2 



OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 

became a settled usage. Another explanation 
of it is, that the "m" was added for the sake 
of euphon} r . However that may be, we cannot 
allow that one anomaly of this kind can justify 
us in going counter to the grammar and usage 
of all languages. 

Of course, when than couples a pronoun to a 
word in the accusative case, the pronoun must 
also be put in the accusative ; we must say "He 
u likes you better than me", and not "be likes 
" you better than I " ; the latter phrase is inad- 
missible.* In our opinion this shows completely 
that than is nothing more than a conjunction, 
and it is an unheard-of thing in any language 
that a conjunction can govern an accusative. 
As is a word of precisely the same character as 
than : would Dean Alford defend the vulgarisms, 
" I am as tall as him " , " He is as tall as me " ? 

A correspondent has kindly sent us a well- 
known example of the latter usage from one of 
our standard poets : — 

" The nations not so blest as thee 
" Must in their turn to tyrants fall, 

" "Whilst thou shalt flourish, great and free, 
" The dread and envy of them all." 

Thomson's ' Pule Britannia? 

In our opinion the first line of this stanza is 
utterly indefensible. 

The Dean upholds the use of the verb "to 

* " He likes you better than me " is, He likes you better 
than [helikes] me ; and, "He likes you better than P 1 
is, He likes you better than I [like you]. The meaning 
of each phrase is widely different.— G.W.M. 



OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 

"leave"," 1 a neuter, or, as he bids us term it, 
an absolute sense. He defends the sentence " I 
"shall not leave before December 1" on the 
ground that the verb is still active, but the ob- 
ject is suppressed. We deny that to "leave" 
is here used in an active sense ; it is synon}^- 
mous with "to go away", "depart", &c, which 
are neuter verbs. The Dean brings forward 
the instances of the verbs "to read" and "to 
"write", as though they were analogous cases, 
because they may be used at will either transi- 
tively or intransitively. These verbs, however, 
themselves express an occupation, just as .much 
as to run, to sit, or to stand. If we wish to 
know how any one is spending his time, it is a 
sufficient answer to say " He is reading " ; if we 
are aware of that fact, and wish to know what 
is the object of his study, then we must use the 
verb transitively, and say, " He is reading ' The 
" ' Queen's English ' ", or any other book. " To 
"read" has become to all of us a complete 
notion ; " to leave " is not so ; and, as we said 
before, must be used as an equivalent for to 
depart, or go away, in the phrase quoted. This 
is an unnecessary extension of its signification, 
and as all such extensions give rise to more or 
less ambiguity, they should be avoided. The 
use of a verb in an intransitive as well as a 
transitive sense must always Joe a matter de- 
pending entirely on authority. Such a use of 
" to leave" was ignored formerly, and has arisen 
only within comparatively few years from the 
carelessness of slipshod speakers and writers. 



150 OPIXIOXS OF THE PRESS. 

In the present day it is eschewed by good wri- 
ters of English ; by others it is used invariably, 
but quite unnecessarily, in a neuter sense. 

In Dr. Alford's objections to the restrictions 
placed by grammarians on the words first and 
last, former and latter, he makes the following 
remarks : — 

" ' First ' is, unavoidably used of that one in a scries 
with, which we begin, whatever be the number which 
follow ; whether many or few. Why should not last be 
used of that one in a series with which we end, whatever 
be the number which preceded, whether many or few ? " 

"We should have thought that the answer was 
quite ' evident. First has two meanings; it 
stands for the superlative of the comparative 
former, and for the ordinal corresponding to the 
cardinal number one. Last is -used only as the 
superlative of latter; it cannot, therefore, be 
ever used in numerical statements. In speaking 
of a book in two volumes, which are numbered 
1 and 2, we refer to the 1st or 2nd volume; 
but 1st is not here the same as first, the super- 
lative of former. This is easily shown in the 
case of most of our large public schools, where the 
6th form is the first, and the 1st form the last in 
the school. If we had such a word as oneth to . 
stand as the ordinal of one, we should say that 
the 6th form is the first, and the oneth the last ; 
as it is, we are obliged to make first do duty in 
. each case. 

"We do not agree theoretically with the Dean's 
remarks on the aspiration of the " h " in humble, 



opixiomrs of the press. 151 

though practically we think it advisable to follow 
the growing usage of the day, and sound the 
"h". It was formerly almost as common to 
say uirible as it was to say onour and (h)our. In 
regard to the words "ospital", " erV\ and 
"umble", our author says that all of them are 
" very offensive, but the last of them by far the 
" worst, especially when heard from officiating 
"Clergymen". We believe that the reason 
why the Clergy have so commonly adopted the 
practice of sounding the "h" in humble, is 
because educated persons cannot endure the 
idea of its being said of them that they drop 
their "h's"; directly, therefore, the custom 
became prevalent of aspirating humble, the 
Clergy at once took it up. It will be the same 
as soon as it becomes at all usual to sound the 
"h" in honour, honesty, &c. "We deny that 
"amble and hearty no man can pronounce with- 
out a pain in his throat" ; it is just as easy to * 
pronounce as " under heaven ". 

In one or two places the Dean becomes hyper- 
critical ; for instance : — 

" By-the-by, what are we to think of the phrase which 
came in during the Crimean war, * The right man in the 
right place" 1 ? How can the right man ever be in the 
wrong place ? or the wrong man in the right place ? "We 
used to illustrate the unfitness of things by saying that 
the round man had got into the square hole, and the 
square man into the round hole ; that was correct enough; 
hut it was the putting incongruous things together that 
was wrong, not the man, nor the hole ". 

It is the custom in all languages, when it is 



152 OPIXIOXS OF THE PRESS. 

desired that an idea shall be impressed forcibly 
on a reader, to repeat the word in some way or 
other. Thus, in the 2nd chapter of Genesis, 
the original of "thou shalt surely die" is "dy- 
" ing thou shalt die " ; so likewise, in the New 
Testament, with the Hebraism, " with desire 
"have I desired". The Greek tragedians 
abound in such pleonasms, especially in : the 
repetition of an adjective, by qualifying the 
verb with the adverb formed from the adjective. 
- In the present instance, " the right man in the 
" place ", sounds wretchedly flat in comparison 
with " the right man in the right place ". 

There are many other remarks in this work 
with which we cannot agree, but we have no 
wish to weary our readers with further criti- 
cisms on this somewhat dry subject. — The Eng- 
lish Churchman, January 28, 1864. 



THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH. 

A Criticism from ' Tlie Patriot? 

Dean Alford has collected into a book his papers 
contributed to ' Good Words' 1 and, of course, 
has subjected them to a fresh and final revision. 
He tells us, indeed, that "now, in a considerably 
" altered form, they are presented to the pub- 
" lie " ; so that we may fairly regard both the 
canons and the composition of this volume as 
the deliberate and final setting forth of the 



OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 

Dean's notions of the proprieties of the English 
language. No plea of hasty writing, such as 
unfortunate newspaper writers, or public lec- 
turers, or even magazine contributors, might 
fitly urge is valid here. The Dean tells us, 
too — what we are very glad to learn, and what 
speaks well for the Christian placability of both 
parties — that the somewhat sharp passage of 
arms betwixt Mr. Moon and himself has ended 
in an invitation to dinner and a real friendship. 
" From antagonism we came to intercourse ; 
"and one result of the controversy I cannot 
"regret — that it has enabled me to receive Mr. 
" Moon as a guest, and to regard him hencefor- 
" ward as my friend." Will this deprive the 
public of the benefit of Mr. Moon's criticisms 
upon the present volume ? We should be sorry 
to think so ; for there really is much to be said 
about it, and, we fear, .much ault to be found 
with it. Dean Alford has rendered good service 
to his generation. He was an exemplary work- 
ing clergyman ; and he is, we doubt noty as 
exemplary a Dean. He is an excellent poet, 
and his beautiful hymn, "Zo, the storms of life 
" are lreaMng\ sung to sweet music, has often 
soothed our soul. We cannot call him an 
accomplished Greek scholar ; but he has com- 
piled the most useful working Greek Testament 
of our generation ; amenable to a thousand 
adverse criticisms, but laboriously 'bringing to- 
gether almost all that working clergymen need. 
But with all this we cannot regard him as an 
authority on the philosophy of the English 



OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 

language, or as an example of its more accurate 
use. It is strange that men should imagine 
themselves that which they are so far from 
being, that they are unconscious even of their 
defects. Only a scholar of the widest philo- 
logical reading and of the nicest discrimination 
should have presumed to write a book on the 
use and abuse of the Queen's English. No 
doubt Dean Alford thinks that he is such a 
scholar, and that his composition, if not in his 
ordinary sermons, yet in this volume, is fault- 
less. We regret to be compelled to think other- 
wise. His style, where not positively ungram- 
matical, is loose, and flabby, and awkward ; his 
sentences are ungainly in construction, and 
sometimes positively ludicrous in the meaning 
which they involuntarily convey. We will take 
a few instances ; and we begin with the third 
sentence in the book. 

"It" (the term "Queen's English") "is one 
" rather familiar and conventional, than strictly 
"accurate". As Dean Alford uses it, the ad- 
verb "rather" qualifies the terms "familiar" 
and " conventional ". He means it to qualify the 
term " strictly accurate ", and should have said, 
" It is one familiar and conventional rather than 
" strictly accurate". 

" For language wants all these processes, as 
"well as roads do", is scarcely so elegant as 
a critical Dean should have written. 

Again: "And it is by processes of this kind 
'in the course of centuries, that our English 

tongue has been ever adapted ", &c. ; instead 



OPIXIOXS OF THE PRESS. 

of "It is by processes of this kind that, in the 
" course of centuries, our English tongue ", &c. 

" Carefulness about minute accuracies of in- 
" flexion and grammar ma}' appear to some very 
" contemptible ". We trust that the Dean is 
not one of these ; but would it not have been 
better to have written, " may to some appear 
" very contemptible " ? 

" The other example is one familiar to 3 r ou, 
"of a more solemn character ". And whfflt is it 
to those .given to levity ? The Dean meant to 
say, " The other example is of a more solemn 
" character, and is one familiar to you". 

"The first remark that I have to make shall 
"de on the trick now so universal across the 
"Atlantic". Here tenses are curiously con- 
fused ; and the Dean apparently forgets that 
the term universal is absolute, and does not ad- 
mit of a comparative. 

" The late Archdeacon Hare, in an article on 
"English orthography in the ' Philological Mu- 
" l seum ' ". TVe did not know that the English 
orthography of the ' Philological Museum ' was 
peculiar or needed an article. The Dean means 
" in an article in the 'Philological Museum ' on 
"English orthography". 

" AYe do not follow rule in spelling the other 
" words, but custom ". An elegant writer would 
have said, " In spelling the other words we do 
" not follow rule, but custom ". 

These specimens occur in the first twelve 
pages ; how many the entire volume would 
afford, is beyond our calculation. A little farther 



156 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 

on we read: — "As I write these lines, which I 
"do while waiting in a refreshment-room at 
" Reading, between a Great Western and a 
" South-Eastern train". We did not know that 
the refreshment-room at Reading stood between 
two trains. 

With many of Dean Alford's canons, both of 
derivation, pronunciation, and even spelling, 
we have almost equal fault to find ; but we 
forbear. We must say, .however, that, notwith- 
standing Mr. Latham's authority, and a,t the risk 
of being reckoned "grammarians of the smaller 
"sort", we are still unconvinced of the pro- 
priety of saying, even colloquially, " It's me ", 
and of the pedantry of saying, "It's I ". 

We must add, too, that a somewhat unseemly 
egotism and gossipiness pervade the book — 
pardonable enough in popular lectures, but 
surely to be excluded from a philological trea- 
tise. The Dean seems to have no plan, but jusr 
to say anything that comes first, and to say it 
an}^how. Perhaps he thinks the chit-chat of a 
Dean sufficient for all persons of lesser dignity. 

Dean Alford, of course, says many just and 
useful things, arid will, we trust, do something 
to correct some errors and vulgarisms. But it 
is one thing to read Dean Alford's sentences, 
and it is another to read Macaulay^s. — ' Patriot' 
January 14, 1864. 



OPIXIOXS OF THE PRESS. is* 

A Plea for the Queerts English. By Henry 
Alford, d.d., Dean of Canterbury. l Good 
4 Words \ March, 1S63. 

A CRITICISM BY PERNICKITY PAWKIE, GENT. 

[From tlie '•Glasgow Christian News."*] 

The " Southrons " (so we at - one time called 
them) are unlike any other of the nations in 
regard to the treatment which they bestow upon 
their language. They call it their " mother- 
" tongue", and yet, if the Dean of Canterbury 
be a trustworthy witness, their mothers did not 
speak it ; if you check any Southron for mis- 
pronouncing a word, he will gravely inform you 
that he goes by Entick, Sheridan, Knowles, or 
somebody else. You cannot get the Southrons, 
as a people, to "go by" any one authority for 
five minutes at a time in the accentuation of 
their trother-iongxiQ ; and yet you will find 
yourself greatly mistaken if you suppose that 
you are getting from any Southron the credit 
of speaking "the Queen's English," unless 
you condescend to imitate some foppish speaker 
of that licentious language. 

The Dean of Canterbury has written what he 
calls l A Plea for the Queen's English' in 
4 Good Words ' for March ; and I shall be bold 
enough to show that, in some particulars, the 
Dean has really written adversely towards the 
Queen's English. 



188 OPIXIOXS OF THE PRESS. 

The Dean has written as follows : — 

" In common talk the pronouns ' /', ' Tie ', ' s7to ', are 
freely used. But when the form of the context throws 
these pronouns into unusual prominence, Ave shrink, I 
suppose, from making so much of ourselves or one 
another -as the use of them in the nominative case would 
imply. Was there ever one of us who, when asked 
' Who's there ' ? did not first and most naturally reply, 
' It's me '. And though reproved, and it may he even 
corrected as a child for the mistake, which of us is there 
that does not continually fall into it, if it he one, again 
and again ?" 

Now let us observe what the Dean says in the 
latter part of the above passage : he questions 
if the act of placing the word me where / ought 
to be is a mistake ! Dr. Caird should be most 
truly grateful to Dean Alford ; for the Doctor 
sa3 r s — "Believing in that love stronger than 
u death which for me, and such as me, drained 
" the cup of untold sorrows ". If an English 
Dean has not something useful to do, let him 
by all means avoid teaching us lad English. 
The shade of Sir Walter Scott ought to be 
most truly grateful to Dean Alford; for the 
Dean is of opinion that the following may not 
really be a mistake : — 

" Yet oft in Holy Writ we see 
" Even such weak minister as me 
" May the oppressor bruise ". 

Any one who has given th2 least attention to 
the subject must have observed that the Dean 
is pleading for a blunder which is just the ever- 



OPINION'S OF THE PRESS. 159 

lasting one on both sides of the Tweed : and 
that the Dean's idea of its being the result of a 
sweet modesty is the veriest nonsense — as if, 
forsooth the spirit of egotism is not as fre- 
quently practised under the word me as under 
the word I!* 

The guide in the matter is very simple : let 
the verb be supplied, and the monstrous blunder 
frowns in all its hideousness. Let the sentences 
which I have above quoted from Dr. Caird 
and Sir "Walter Scott he implemented (as our law 
jargon words it), and the blunder glares out 
upon us. Let us write as follows : — 

"Believing in that lore stronger than death which 
for me, and such as me [am], drained the cup of untold 
sorrows " — ' Religion of Common life', p. QQ. 

" Yet oft in Holy "Writ we see 
"Even such weak minister as me [am] 
" May the oppressor bruise ". 

'Marmion,' canto v, xxxi. 



* "Th is shrinking from the use of the personalpronoun, 
this autophoby, as it may be called, is not indeed a proof 
of the modesty it is designed to indicate ; any more than 
the hydrophobia is a proof that there is no thirst in the 
constitution. On the contrary it rather letrays a mor- 
bidly sensitive selj '-consciousness. ," 

" So far indeed is the anxiety to suppress the personal 
pronoun from being a sure criterion of humility, that 
there is frequently a ludicrous contrast between the con- 
ventional generality of our language and the egotism of 
the sentiments expressed in it.'* 

{ ' Modesty must dwell within, in the heart ; and a brief 
I is the modestest, most natural, simplest word I can 
use.'' ' (ritesses at Truth, 1 pp. 142, 148, 150. 



OPINION'S OF THE PRESS. 

But it is not in grammar on\y that the Gre- 
cian Dean endeavours to mislead us Scotchmen. 
He tries his hand also at pronunciation. He 
writes as follows : 

" We still sometimes, even in good society, hear 
ospital, erl, and umble — all of them very offensive, hut 
the last of them by far the worst ". 

Will it be believed that the dictionaries are 
against Dean Alford (all except two) in the pro- 
nunciation of the above words ? It surely re- 
quires a man to be possessed of not a little 
meism before he presumes to write as he has 
done respecting the foregoing words. The fol- 
lowing dictionaries are in his favour (they are 
hut' two) — namely Webster and Jameson ; while, 
on the contrary, Walker, Sheridan, Perry, 
Knowles, Smart, Wright, Craig, and Surenne . 
are, all of them, against the Dean ; and 
Worcester countenances both ways. 

The fact is, that this word is simply the 
French one — humble — and was pronounced by 
our Norman ancestors as the above eight dic- 
tionaries continue to pronounce it : two only 
being against them, and one of these an 
American. 

The Dean says, " The English Prayer-Book 
4 'has at once settled the pronunciation of this 
" word [humble] for us, by causing us to give 
" God our 'humble and hearty thanks'* in the 
" General Thanksgiving. Umble.and hearty", 
says the Dean, "no man can pronounce without 
u a pain in his throat". 



OPIXIOXS OF THE PRESS. 

Did ever such drivelling proceed from a 
very Reverend Dean of Canterbury ? But this 
is not all ; for, giving the vulgar mode of 
uttering the entire sentence, the critic is so 
.utterly given over to special pleading that he 
writes as follows : — 

" Umble and hearty no man can pronounce without 
a pain in his throat ; and ' umblanarty ' he certainly 
never was meant to say". 

If this very Reverend Dean decides the pro- 
nunciation of the Greek language on such frivo- 
lous data as he does this word humble, I must 
hold him to be of but little worth as a philolo- 
gist ; and I advise my compatriots to let most 
votes carry the day. TTith our eight dictionaries 
(all of them of much higher standing than the 
two opponents) let us decide that the word 
" humble " shall not be aspirated. 

The very Reverend Dean appears to me to be 
out of his element when treating of a matter of 
taste. He writes as follows : — 

"i/umble andTTearty is the only pronunciation which 
will suit the alliterative style of the prayer, which has 
in it not only with our lips but in our lives " 

There is coarseness and the absence of poetic 
tact in this observation. Humble, in order to 
sympathise with the sentiment which- is ex- 
pressed in the word, ought to be umble. H is 
a hearty letter : IT is despondent. Alliteration, 
if it teaches anything in such a matter, teaches 

M 



162 OPIXIOXS OF THE PRESS. 

the very reverse of this unsympathetic and 
unpoetic work-day Dean's whimsies upon the 
subject. The word humble ought, in the prayer, 
to be enunciated with a pause — it ought to be 
uttered with feeling, which requires a pause — it 
ought not to be followed rapidly by the words 
" and hearty " which ought to express a different 
kind of feeling — a warmth, a cordiality, a vigour. 
Let the Dean appeal to anything but some hum- 
drum in holy orders, and it will be given against 
him, or I am in the last degree mistaken. 

The Dean is pleased also to be facetious upon 
"penny-a-liners". We, Scotchmen, have no 
especial complaint to make against him on this 
score ; but this we may say, he may just as well 
attempt " to stem the Thames with a pitchfork ' 
as to stereot} r pe the " Queen's English " as he 
calls it. Benjamin Franklin could bring down 
the electric fluid from the clouds — an invention 
which has carried language with the speed of 
lightning, but he could not control human lan- 
guage, and yet his /-ism was ???6-ism when 
compared with the efforts of the Dean upon 
this particular. In a letter to Noah Webster, 
dated Dec. 26, 1789, Franklin writes as follows : — 



" I find that several new words hare been introduced 
into our parliamentary language. For example, I find 
a verb formed from the substantive notice. I should not 
have noticed this were it not. Also another verb from 
the substantive advocate. The gentleman who advocates 
or has advocated that motion. Another from the sub- 
stantive progress. The committee # having progressed. 
The word oj>j)osed (though not a new word) 1 find used in 



OPIXIOXS OF THE PRESS. 163 

a new manner, as, The gentlemen who are Opposed to 
this new measure. If you happen to be of my opinion 
(continues Franklin) with respect to these innovations, 
you will use your authority in reprobating them ". 



No doubt Dean Alford would have lent a 
helping hand here; but with what success? 
The progress of language is a thing far 
mightier than the breath of Deans ! 

I take exception to the Dean's treatment of 
the word, press, which has not yet ceased to be a 
collective noun. He has no right (on Ms prin- 
ciples) to write as follows : — 

u Allude to is used in a new sense by the 
" press, and not only by them, but". The Dean 
ought here to have written "it" instead of 
"them;" and yet w T e find this teacher playing him- 
self with the inaccuracy (so he calls it) of saying 
." twice one are two ", and " three times three are 
"nine". In order to prove the grammatical 
incorrectness of these two assertions, the clever 
Dean alters the form of the expression, and, 
"presto"/ the juggle is concluded. "What we 
" want (says the Dean, being simply this, that 
" three taken three times makes up, is equal to 
"nine". Now, admitting this to be correct, 
Mr. Dean — admitting three not to be plural an}^ 
more than one (which is just what you should 
prove, but also just what you do not attempt to 
prove) nevertheless, admitting your 'improved 
premises ; yet, when we say what you " want " 
to say in another mode, if that other mode have 
a plural nominative, the verb must also 6e 

M 2 



OPIXIOJ\ r S OF THE FEESS. 

plural ; and we say " three times'''' must be plural, 
and so must even three. 

I might for example, say of a man and his 
wife — "they twain are one flesh"; but you, Mr. 
Dean, might reply to me (as you are now doing), 
" What we want to say is simply this- — this man 
11 is, and that woman is, one flesh — makes up, is 
" equal to one flesh." All very good ! But so 
long as we speak of them as twain, we must (in 
order to be grammatical) employ the word are 
respecting them. 

It appears to me, Pernickity Pawkie, that this 
Southron and Prelatic Dean has mystified and 
bewildered his reasoning powers respecting the 
grammar of the multiplication table by a highly- 
wrought abstraction upon the Athanasian Creed 
respecting the triune and official subsistencies 
of the Godhead — " Three in one sense, and one 
" in another " — may, by some misconception of 
the fact,*have deranged the ideas of numerical 
relation in the Dean's mind, and it will account 
for his hallucination in reference to the mode of 
stating the multiplication table. It is this 
Dean's idiosyncracy to refine. — The Christian 
Xfeics, May 2, 1863. 



THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH. 

A Cjuticis:-! from Routledge's Magazine, 
Oct., 1864 

Ise study of language is one of the most 
instructive and, at the same time, one of the 



OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 165 

most interesting occupations with which we can 
employ ourselves ; and, in the present age of 
advanced education, it is absolutely necessary 
for everybody to obtain a knowledge of his own 
language, and to read, speak, and write it in 
accordance with the known rules on the subject. 
However well taught a man may be in other 
branches of study, he will never make his 
way in the world unless he can speak cor- 
rectly, since correct speaking is, as it were, 
the outward attribute of the gentleman, and 
the one by which his other qualifications are 
judged. 

The Dean is evidently not a graceful writer 
of English, as he is sure to have put forth all 
his strength in the composition of a book on 
language. This strength, however, seems to 
consist in devising the most unnatural manner 
of writing good English, and in violating some 
of Lord Karnes's most important rules with 
regard to words expressing things connected 
in thought being placed as near together as 
possible. 

4 The Queen's English,'' we must state, pro- 
fesses to be a reprint from a widely circulated 
periodical entitled * Good Words,"* and the 
subject is said to be 'presented to the public* 
' in a considerabry altered form.' 

This is strictly true, for, having compared the 
reprint with the original articles, we are able to 
compliment the Dean on the many judicious 
alterations he has made ; thanks, perhaps, to 
the suggestions given by a gentleman styled, in 



W OPIXIOXS OF THE PRESS. 

a country paper, " a knight, bearing on his 
" shield the emblem of the lunar orb", and other 
lovers of pure English who have considered that 
the reverend grammarian has in some way 
defiled the pure well of English. 

Sitting down with the book, * and the 
volume of ' Good Words' 1 for 18G3 before 
us, we note no great difference until we 
come to the following expression : " The Queen 
"is of course no more the proprietor of the 
" English language than you or I?\ — (see ' Good 
1 Words'), but in the volume we have " than any 
" of us." Why this change ? On page 152 of 
the book we read : " What are we to think of 
"the" question, whether 'than' does or does not 
"govern an accusative case?' 'than I': 'than 
" me': which is right ? My readers will probably 
"answer without hesitation, the former. But 
" is the latter so certainly wrong ? We are 
" accustomed to hear it stigmatized as oeing so ; 
"dut, I thin\ erroneously. Milton writes, 
" '■Paradise Lost] ii, 299, — 

" 'Which when Beelzebub perceived, t-Jian whom, 
Satan except, none higher sat.' 

"And thus every one of us would speak : 'than 
" ' who ', would be intolerable. And this seems to 
" settle the question." 

So the Dean thinks. We, however, do 
not. Poetry is not often considered a high 
authority on matters of grammatical construc- 
tion, although the Dean seems to think it should 

* Second Edition. 



ormioxs of the press. 

be, since this is the only instance of " than " 
governing the accusative that he deigns to 
cite : besides, it is evident that in many cases, the 
employment of the accusative instead of the 
nominative, gives to the sentence another mean- 
ing, thus: 

1 He likes you better than me. 

2 He likes you better than I. 

Surely it is manifest to everybody that the 
first form means that he likes you better than 
(he likes) me, and that the latter means, he likes 
you better than I (like you) ; and yet our Dean 
in an authoritative manner says, that yo\i may 
say either " than /", or " than me", but that the 
former should be used only when solemnity is 
required, as " My Father is greater than I." 

Is solemnity required when mention is made 
of the Queen in regard to her proprietorship of 
the English language ? We trow not. Why, 
then, does our Dean lay down a rule, and break 
it on the first page of his Essa} T s ? This reflec- 
tion seems to have occurred to the mind of the 
author, who probably in his reprint weighed 
with care exery expression he made use of. 
This at any rate seems the only reason why he 
should alter u than /" to "an} r one of us," and 
thus screen himself under an expression which 
fits either rule. 

Let us pause for a short time and note what 
some authorities write about this conjunction. 
Lowth is of opinion that such forms as " thou 
" art wiser than me " are bad grammar. Mr. E. 
F. Graham, in his excellent book on English 



1S8 ' OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 

Style, quotes the objective case after " than " as 
a downright grammatical error, whilst our old 
friend Lindley Murray devotes a page and a half 
to the** discussion of this question, and, after 
citing the lines of Milton just quoted, concludes 
his notice by saying, "The phrase?- han whom, 
" is, however, avoided by the best modern 
" writers ". The crowning point of all, however, 
is that the very author whom Dean Alford 
quotes in support of his theory, says in the 
first book of ' Paradise Lost ' : — 

" "What matter where, if I be still the same, 
And what I should be, all but less than Tie? " 

Near the end of a paragraph in the first 
Essay occurs the following sentence, which is 
omitted in the book : — "And I really don't wish 
" to be dull ; so please, dear reader, to try and 
" not think me so." 

It was wise, indeed, on the Dean's part, to 
omit this sentence in his book, for probably it 
contains the worst mistake he has made. Try 
and think, indeed ! Try to think, we can 
understand. Fancy saying " the dear reader 
"tries and tliinlcs me so"; for, mind, a con- 
junction is used only to connect words, and can 
govern no case at all. However, as the Dean 
has not allowed this to appear in his book, we 
refrain from alluding further to it. 

As the Dean admits that his notes are for 
the most part insulated and unconnected, we 
presume that we need make no apology if our 
critical remarks happen to partake of the same 



0PIX10XS OF THE PRESS. 169 

character ; for, the reader will easily understand 
that criticism on unconnected topics must itself 
tlso be unconnected. 

"Who does not recollect with pleasure those 
dear old ladies, Sairah Gamp and Betsey Prig ? 
" Which, altering the name to Sairah Gamp, I 
" drink," said Mrs. Prig. 

"As I write these lines, which I do while 
" waiting in a refreshment room at Reading 
■" between a Great "Western and a South Eastern 
" train," says the Dean. . The time when, "and the 
place where, great men have written their books 
is always interesting information, and we thank 
Dean Alford for telling us where he wrote this 
elegant sentence ; but fancy, what a very small 
refreshment room there must be at Reading, if 
it stands between two trains. May we venture 
to suggest that the sentence would have' been 
improved if "which I do", and the words from 
"between" to "train," had been altogether 
omitted. " Which you are right, my dear," 
says Mrs. Harris. 

On page 67 the Dean comes to that which he 
says must form a 'principal part of his little 
work. The principal part means, we believe, 
more than half of anything, but as in the present 
work there are evidently two principal parts (at 
least), it appeai-s that the volume contains more 
than the two halves. Perhaps the Dean was 
waiting between two trains in Ireland when he 
penned this sentence. 

With regard to the demonstrative pronouns, 
" this refers to the nearest person or thing, and 



170 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 

" that to the most distant," says Murray. This, 
however, is not Dean Alford's view of the 
matter. 

After mentioning the name Sophcenetus (and 
no other), he writes, " Every clergyman is, or 
" ought to be, familiar with his Greek Testa- 
" ment ; two minutes reference to that will show 
" him how every one of these names ought 
" to be pronounced." 

Who is right here — Lindley Murray or the 
Dean of Canterbury ? Stop ! stop ! Not so fast. 
In theory, the Dean agrees with our gram- 
marian ; for, eleven pages further on, he says, 
— u ' this ' and ' these"* refer to persons and things 
" present, or under immediate consideration ; 
"'that 1 and 'those 1 to persons and things not 
" present, nor under immediate consideration ; 
" or if either of these, one degree further re- 
" moved than the others of which are used ' this 1 
"and 'these 111 . He then mentions a Scottish 
friend, who always designates the book which he 
has in hand as " that ooolc. 11 Surely this Scotch- 
man and the" Dean belong to one family. 

It is not often in books that we see an author 
plainly contradict himself within the space of 
sixteen lines. 

On page 183 we read, "I should speak cor- 
rectly if I said, 'Dr. Johnson flew upon me': 
"incorrectly, if I said, 'he fell upon me'." 

On the same page we read — 

"And as to my correspondent's last dictum, 
" that ' he fell upon me ', would be incorrect ; let 
"him look at 1 Kings ii, 25, 34, 46, in which 
44 places it is said of Adonijah, Joab, and Shimei, 



OPIXIOXS OF THE PRESS. 171 

" respectively, that Benaiah, the son of Johoiada, 
"fell upon him that he died." 

Now in all these actions we have instances of 
men falling upon others. How happens it that 
what is right in one case is wrong in the other ? 

We now come with much pleasure to the last 
fault which we have to find with Dr. Alford's 
book. We have purposely deferred any mention 
of this particular subject until now, on the 
same principle as that which actuated the 
schoolboy who always kept the best till the last. 

On page 280 we read the following excellent 
remarks : — 

"Avoid, likewise, all slang words. There is 
"no greater nuisance in society than a talker of 
" slang. It is only fit (when innocent, which it 
" seldom is) for raw schoolboys and one-term 
"freshmen, to astonish their sisters with." 

Of course after expressing himself so strongly 
on this point, it is not to be expected that, in a 
work on the Queen's English,, Dean Alford will 
make use of slang terms. Let us see. 

On page 2, he tells us, " He bowls along it with 
"ease in a vehicle, which a few centuries ago 
"would have been broken to pieces in a deep, rut, 
" or (would have) come to grief in a bottomless 
" swamp." 

In the original notes the words would have 
were omitted. One of his censors then sug- 
gested that the sentence was "or would have 
" been come to grief". On page 132 of his book, 
the Dean defends his elliptical mode of spelling : 
but, on page 2, by altering it, he tacitly admits 
that he is wrong. 



172 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 

On page 41 he tells us about some people who 
had been detained by a tipple. 

On page 178 we are told that the Dean and 
his family took a trap from the inn. 

And, on page 154, he writes to Mr. Moon, "If 
" you see an old party in a shovel, that will be 
" me ". "Whereas, on page 245, in sneering at our 
journals he says, a man in them is a party. 
Now we are persuaded that no newspaper 
writes of a man in such vulgar language. 
This style seems to have been left to a Dean 
when writing on controversial subjects. 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH v. THE QUEEN'S 
ENGLISH. 

A Criticism from The London Review, 

July 30, 1864. 

A writer in the current number of ' The Edin- 
burgh JReview' censures Mr. Moon for hyper- 
critically objecting to sentences the meaning of 
which is perfectly clear, though it is possible, 
having regard to the mere construction, to 
interpret them in a sense ludicrously false. We 
think that Mr. Moon does occasionally exhibit 
an excessive particularity ; but many of his 
criticisms on Dr. Alford are, as the reviewer 
himself admits, thoroughly deserved. Because 



OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 

certain ambiguities have become recognised 
forms of speech, and are universally understood 
in the correct sense, a writer is not entitled to 
indulge in a lax mode of expression, which a 
little trouble would have rendered unimpeach- 
able without any sacrifice of ease, grace, or 
naturalness. The reviewer quotes or imagines 
two sentences to which no reasonable objection 
could be made, though the construction is 
assuredly not free from ambiguity : — " Jack 
" was very respectful to Tom, and al\va} r s took 
" off his hat when he met him." " Jack was very 
" rude to Tom, and always knocked off his hat 
" when he met him." Now, as a mere matter 
of syntax, it might be doubtful whether Jack 
did not show his respect to Tom by taking off 
Tom's hat, and his rudeness by knocking off 
his own ; but the fault is hardly a fault of 
construction — it is a fault inherent in the 
language itself, which has not provided for a 
distinction of personal pronouns. The sen- 
tences in question are clearly defective ; but 
they could be amended only by an excessive 
verbosity and tautology, which would be much 
more objectionable ; and, at any rate, they are 
no justification of those errors of composition 
which might easily oe amended, and which 
spring from the writer's own indolence or care- 
lessness. The confusion of personal pronouns, 
however, is a subject worthy of comment. It 
is incidentally alluded to by a writer in the last 
number of '■The Quarterly Review\ in an article 
on the report of the Public School Commission- 



174 OPINIONS OF THE rHESS. 

ers ; and a ludicrous example is given, from the 
evidence of a Somersetshire witness in a cas*e 
of manslaughter, though, notwithstanding the 
jumble, the sense is clear enough. The fatal 
affray was thus described by the peasant : — 
" He'd a stick, and he'd a stick, and he licked 
" he, and he licked he ; and if he'd a licked he 
"as hard as he licked he, he'd a killed he, and 
"not he he." Now, supposing the witness not 
to know either combatant, one does not see 
how he could have expressed himself more 
clearly, and he would have a right to charge 
the defect on the language. Like everything 
else in the world, human speech is very imper- 
fect, and we must sometimes take it with all its 
blemishes, because we can do no better. For 
instance, there is a certain form of expression 
which involves a downright impossibility, but 
which nevertheless is universally accepted. We 
cannot explain what we mean more pertinently 
than by referring to the phrase commonly seen 
painted on dead walls and palings : — " Stick no 
" bills." Here what is intended is a prohibi- 
tion ; but it really takes the form of an 
injunction, and of an injunction to do an impos- 
sibility. "We are not told to refrain from 
sticking something, or anj'thing — we are com- 
manded to stick something, and the something 
we are to stick is " no bills " ! We are to 
stick on the wall or paling something which 
has no existence. Let us try to imagine the 
process. We must first take up the nonentity 
in one hand, and with the other apply paste to 



OPIXIOXS OF THE PRESS. 175 

its non-existent back ; wc are then to hoist it 
on a pole, and flatten it against a wall. Of 
course, the only correct expression would be, 
" Do not stick bills " ; yet no one would 
seriously recommend the change. (The reader 
will observe that we have here unconsciously 
fallen into the same mode of speech. u No one 
" would recommend " !) The received expres- 
sion is more succinct, and it has now the 
sanction of time. In like manner we say, " He 
" was so vexed that he ate no dinner ", and a 
hundred other phrases of the same character. 
But they are radically bad, and go far to excuse 
the uneducated for so frequently using the 
double negative. The unlettered man knows 
that he wants tb state the negation of some- 
thing, and not the affirmation, and he obscurely 
perceives that a species of affirmation of the 
very thing he wants to deny is put into his 
mouth by such a sentence as, " He ate no 
" dinner " ; so he whips in another negative, 
and really makes the phrase more intelligible 
to himself, and to those of his own class who 
hear him. 

Some comparatively modern modes of ex- 
pression, though not capable of defence, have 
already struck their roots so far that it is 
almost impossible to drag them up. The writer 
in * The E&mburgh Review? when condemning 
the recent use of the word "supplement" as a 
verb, says: — "So infectious has it become that 
"it has, once or twice, crept, notwithstanding 
"our utmost vigilance, into these pages." 



176 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 

Ludicrously enough, one of the faults pointed 
out in this article is committed in another 
article in the very same number. The reviewer 
of Dr. Alford objects (and we think very justly 
objects) to such French-English as — "Born in" 
" 1825, our hero went to Eton in 1837." But 
in the article on Edward Livingston Ave read — 
"Born on the 26th of May, 1764, he was in his 
" thirteenth year on the fay of the Declaration 
"of Independence.*' 

Let us conclude with a hope that Dean Alford 
and Mr. Moon have by this time made up their 
quarrel, and that henceforth they will unite 
their forces for the defence of ' The Queen's 
1 English '. 



CRITICISM. 

An Extract from The Saturday RevieV. 

Just two hundred years ago, according to Mr. 
Hallam, appeared the first number of the first 
review ever published. Monday, the 5th of 
January, 1665, was the birthday of the ' Journal 
des Sgavans; 1 and the enormous development 
which the system of reviewing has received 
since then, is sufficient proof of its utility. Re- 
viewers were at first simply reporters ; from 
being reporters they soon grew by a natural 
process into judges, and from judges they 
became legislators. They succeeded in laying 



OPIXIOXS OF THE PRESS. 177 

down canons of criticism which affected the 
development of the public taste ; and it is in 
this capacity that they have been accused, by 
the sentimental school, of every variety of 
harshness and meanness. The existence of a 
vigorous periodical criticism is as necessary a 
sanitary condition of modern literature as the 
existence of good ventilation is of a house. The 
incidental inconveniences that result may be 
compared to the draughts which sometimes kill 
oflf invalids in over-ventilated houses. But in „. 

literature invalids ought to be killed off. They 
are, indeed, in the habit of complaining during 
the process, and weak-minded persons sometimes 
take up their complaints, and rail somewhat 
vaguely against the evil spirit of periodical 
criticism " generally. The ignorance of the 
Edinburgh reviewers who said that Wordsworth 
was dull and childish, and the brutality of the 
assault upon Keats in the Quarterly, are the 
staple examples of late years. They are neither 
of them good for much. Keats was not really 
" snuffed out by an article " : and Wordsworth 
would have been none the worse for attending 
to some of Jeffrey's criticism. If he had known 
how to take advice, he would not have mixed 
with some noble poetry so much that no human 
being ever reads except from a sense of duty. 
In fact, Wordsworth, whilst hidden in a region 
sheltered from critics, produced stuff which, as 
coming from a true poet, is the best proof of the 
necessity of the critical spur to keep poets up 
to the mark. If he had lived in London instead 



opmiojsrs of tee press. 

of on the shores of Rydal, the "Solitary" and 
the " Wanderer" could never have been so 
pitilessly prosy. But, without examining par- 
ticular cases, the general accusation seems to 
us to be childish. Few people, however, will 
contend that the exposure of bad taste and 
writing is too severe habitually. So long as 
there is an unfailing supply of absurdity, its 
existence seems a tolerable proof that it has not 
been laughed at sufficiently. Though you bray 
a fool in a mortar, we are told, yet will not his 
folly depart from him ; and we may add, what 
is still more annoying, the braying" will not seem 
to hurt him. He will be just as happy after the 
operation as he was before. The person against 
whom the attack is directed is therefore the last 
to be pitied. The present system of criti- 
cism produces merely a systematic expression of 
the average opinion of the more highly educated 
classes. It is the embodiment, in a fixed form, 
of the floating criticism that must always 
permeate society. If a man is ever to publish 
anything be} r ond his own narrow circle, it is a 
great blessing to him to have a court ready to 
express the common judgment promptly and 
frankly. A man may occasionally exist of such 
delicate constitution that he cannot bear to hear 
what every one thinks of him— that he requires 
to be sheltered from every rude blast, and 
reared carefully like a plant in a hothouse. The 
real difference which the present plan produces 
is, that he gets decisively in one dose the 
opinions which would otherwise come strained 



OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 179 

and filtered to him through a number of different 
channels. He has to take his cold bath at once, 
like a man, instead of sneaking into it by degrees. 
There can be no doubt that the effect of the shock 
is generally healthy. If Keats had really been 
slain by an article, it would perhaps have been 
as well that he should take his poison in one 
dose, instead of collecting it drop by drop. A 
scries of snubs from kind friends would be even 
more depressing to most men than one public 
slap in the face. In fact, we doubt whether any 
one example can be given in which public 
criticism can really be shown to have produced 
evils that would not have arisen equally when 
each man was his own critic. 

It may be contended that criticism establishes 
a standard of taste which improves the inferior 
intellects, but is a check to the most energetic. 
Reviewing is thus considered, not as produc- 
ing individual hardships, but as a visible and 
outward manifestation of a force which imper- 
ceptibly tends to level society at large. To 
consider this question would involve a con- 
sideration of the merits and weaknesses of our 
civilization — a subject of some extent. We can 
only state our impression that an examination of 
this particular case would go to prove that this 
general complaint is capable of an answer. 
We should find that the establishment of an 
empire of public opinion is, in some aspects, 
even favourable to vigour and originality. 
However that may be, we should have estab- 
lished sufficiently the claims of reviewers to the 



180 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 

gratitude of the greater part of mankind in 
identifying their influence with what are called, 
rightly or wrongly, the most progressive ten- 
dencies of the age. An historical review of 
their achievements in past times would finally 
confirm their rank as benefactors of mankind. 
A list of the follies destroyed, of the prejudices 
overcome, and of the original power brought 
out in different journals, from the days of the 
Journal des Sgavans to those of the Quarterly 
and Edinburgh or the Revue de$ Deux Mo?ides t 
would be a record of all the great improve- 
ments of two centuries. 




THE BOOK-LIST 

OP 

ALEXAOT3EK STEAHAN & CO. 



New Publications. 

HOW TO STUDY THE NEW TESTAMENT; 

The Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles. 

BY HENRY ALFORD, D.D., DEAN OP CANTERBURY. 

Small Svo, $2. 



SIMPLE TRUTH FOR EARNEST MINDS. 

BY NORMAN MACLEOD, D.D. 

small Svo, $1.50. 



THE WORKMAN AND THE FRANCHISE. 

THE REPRESENTATION AND EDUCATION OF THE 
PEOPLE. 

Lectures Delivered at the "Working-Men's College, London. 

BY FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE, M.A. 

Demy Svo, $3. 

THEOLOGY AND LIFE. 

Sermons Chiefly on Special Occasions. 
BY E. H. PLUMPTRE, M.A., KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON. 

Small 8vo, $2. 



ALEXANDER STRAHAN & CO.'s 



FAMILY PRAYERS FOR THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. 

BY HENRY ALFORD, D.D., DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 

Small Svo [In the Prest. 



C1TOYENNE JACQUELINE: 

A Woman's Lot in the Great French Revolution. 

BY SARAH TYTLER, 

Author of " Papers for Thoughtful Girls." 

Crown Svo, $2.50. 



" In ' Citoyenne Jacqueline ' we are transported 
wholly and at once to the strange times and scenes 
of a country-place in France in the summer of 1792. 
By a minuteness of detail, graphic but not tedious, 
the author charms us immediately into keen inter- 
est in the scenes i ith the characters 
of the story."— Pall Mull Gazette. 



" It is a story that not only interests us in the 
perusal, but that interests us still more in turning 
over the leaves the second and third time to catch 
the touches which we had missed in the first inter- 
est of the tale. There seems to us real genius i* 
the book." — Spectator^ 



DAYS OF YORET. 

BY SARAH TYTLER. 
2 Vols. Crown Svo. [In tlie Press. 



SIX MONTHS AMONG THE CHARITIES OF EUROPE. 

BY JOHN BE LIEFDE. 

2 Yols. Post 8vo, with 44 Illustrations. $G. 

"Mr. De Liefde's hook is readable,, interesting : phical sketches, and conveys a general 

stimulating. It shows how moral energy will idea of the oojects and plans of the various institu- 
ome obstacles that seem enormous, how faith tions." — Fortnightly Review. 
inthusiasm move mountains. It has pretty t 



MILLAIS'S ILLUSTRATIONS. 

A COLLECTION OF DRAWINGS ON WOOD. 
Bv John Everett Millais, R.A 



410, $T.50. 



" Foremost among the illustrated books deserve 
to be named Mr. Millais's ' Collected Illustra- 
tions.' They are works of art that need no lettei 
press — no comment; they speak for themselves 



t interest by themselves. They nearly 
jxlvaordinary power, and some'of them 
way quite perfect." — London Ti**e» 



LIST OF BOOKS. 
PROFESSOR PLUMPTRE'S TRANSLATION 

OF THE 

TRAGEDIES OF SOPHOCLES. 

With a Biograpeical Essat. 
2 Vols. Crown Svo, $5. 

• Plumptre has I markable for i 
•aoslators, but readable and e„ „ 
has produced a work of singular merit, not less re- { Pall Mall Gazette. 



LAZARUS, AND OTHER POEMS. 

BY E. n. PLUMPTRE, M.A., KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON. 

Second Edition. Small Svo, $1.75. 

" Out of a whole pile of religious poetry, original I " Professor Plumptre's freshness and originality 
and selected, which rises like a castle before us, of thought in treating f live a great 

only one volume — Mr. Plumptre's Poems — de- charm to what we may term his Biblical Idyls." — 
mands that particular attention which is due to Churchman. 
merit of an uncommon order." — Guardian. I 



CHRIST THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. 

BY C. J. YAUGHAN, D.D., YICAR OF DONCASTER. 

Small Svo, $1.50. 

PLAIN WORDS ON CHRISTIAN-LIVING. 

BY C. J. YAUGHAN, D.D., YICAR OF DONCASTER. 

Fourth Thousand, Enlarged. Small Svo, $1.50. 

" There is a self-controlled abstinence from rhe- I the reality that other writers sometimes seek 
uric in Dr. Yaughan's sermons, accompanied by a through a strained ' unprofessionality ' of tone."— ■ 
lower and freshness of thought, which gives them I Loudon Guardian. _, 



SERMONS AND EXPOSITIONS. 

BY THE LATE JOHN ROBERTSON, D.D., GLASGOW CATHEDRAL. 

1 Vol. Post Svo, $3. 

" Dr. Robertson had not a superior among the i equal. Let it be added that a more genial, kindly, 
Scotch clergy ; for manly grasp of mind, for pith I liberal-minded, and honest man never walked this 
and point in treating his subject, he had hardly an I earth. "—Fraser's Magazine, October, 1865, 



ALEXANDER STRAHAN & CO. S 



A PLEA FOR THE QUEEN'S ENGLISH. 

BY HENRY ALFORD, D.D., DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 

New Edition. Small Svo, $1.23. 



" A volume full of lively remark, amusing anec- 
dote, and suggestive hints 'to speakers and writers. 
The Dean's stray notes are very amusing, and very 
instructive, too." — Guardian. 

" There are very few persons, even among those 
who would be shocked at being told they were not 
weil educated, who might not read these lectures 
with profit. Every person who truly respects him- 
self endeavors to perfect his mastery over his mo- 
ther tongue. Nevertheless, vicious forms of speak- 
ing and writing abound in society and literature. 
Dean Alford has collected a larger number of these 
for discriminating censure than were ever before 



brought together, has shown in what respects they 
oifend, and explained the principles on which bet- 
ter forms of expression may be constructed. It is 
of some importance that this work should be per- 
formed by a competent author, because there is a 
great deal of false criticism current. Nonsense 
nowadays can not be content to bo itself; it puts 
on serious airs, and is nothing if not critical. Thig 
volume will be useful, because it will give the 
thoughtful reader insight into the spirit of thought 
which determines the form of language." — Lon- 
don Daily New*. 



LETTERS FROM ABROAD. 

BY HENRY ALFORD, D.D., DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 

Second Edition. Crown Svo, $2.50. 

Genoa to Pisa, is a very charming specimen of 
easy, unaffected, yet picturesque writing. Of the 
present state of Rome and of religion there, Dr. Al- 
tord gives a striking account, and not, as we be- 
scribing the famous coast-road from Nice through | lieve, the least over-colored." — Spectator. 



MEDITATIONS : 

In Advent, on Creation, on Protidence. 
BY HENRY ALFORD, D.D., DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 

Small Svo, $1.25. 



THE POETICAL WORKS OF HENRY ALFORD, 

DEAN OF CANTERBURY. 

Fourth Edition, Enlarged. Small Svo, $2. 



THE DEAN'S ENGLISH. 

A Criticism on the Dean of Canterbury's Essays on " The Queen's English." 

BY G. WASHINGTON MOON, - 

Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. 

Small Svo, $1.75. 



LIST OF BOOKS. 



MAN AND THE GOSPEL. 

BY THOMAS GUTHRIE, D.D., 

Author of " The Gospel in Ezekiel," Etc. 

Sixth Thousand. Crown Svo, $2. 



" Thifl volume exhibits very forcibly the charac- 
teristics of Dr. Guthrie's mind. There i.i a broad 
and simple and faithful enunciation of gospel truth, 
r.a ardent and affectionate earnestness of expostula- 

~"~ wide and generous sympathy '" 

i and 



illustration of the subject in hand." — 
Weekly Review. 

" In point of striking thought, as well as appo- 
site and beautiful illustration, this work will bear 
comparison with any which bears Dr. Guthrie's 
name." — Edinburgh Courant. 



SPEAKING TO THE HEART. 

BY THOMAS GUTHRIE, D.D. 

a Svo, $1.53 ; extra gilt, $2 ; pocket edition, 75 cents. 



vividness the impress ot his gre 



ing book." — English Churchman, 



" In one handsome volume of nearly a thousand pages, and with upwards cf a hun 
dred beautiful wood engravings ; price, $4, 

THE FIRST VOLUME 



THE SUNDAY MAGAZINE. 

Edited by Thomas Guthrie, D.D., 
Author of " The Gospel in Ezekiel." 



S A 
B 



LAISE PASCAL. In Three Parts. By W. Lixdsay Alexander, D.D. 

KATE, THE GRANDMOTHER ; or, The True Way out of Trouble. In Twenty- 
four Chapters. By Jeremiah Gotthelf. 
SKETCHES OF THE COLGATE. Six Papers. By Dr. Guthrie, Editor. 



S K 



rpHEOLOGY FOR THE PEOPLE. Eight Papers. By the Rev. John Cairxs, D.D. ; 

I Rev. J. H. Rigg, M.A. ; Professor David Brown ; and Professor Islat Burns 
rpHE FAMILY LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ABRAHAM." In Two Parts. By 

I J. R. Macduff, D.D., Author of " The Morning and Night Watches," etc. 

JOSHUA TAYLOR'S PASSION. A Story in Eighteen Chapters. By the Author 
of "The Pastor of Gegenburg." 



ALEXANDER. STUAIIAN & CO.'S 

THE ANGELS' SONG. 

BY THOMAS GUTHRIE, D.D. 

Uniform -with " The 'athway cf Promise." 

Cloth antiq ie, T5 cents. 

THE PARABLES OF OUR LORD. 

BY THOMAS GUTHRIE, D.D. 
With Illustration by John Everett Millais, R.A. 

Square Svo, extra cloth gilt, $2.53. 
*** A Second Series is in preparation, uniform. 



THE FOUNDATIONS OF OUR FAITH ; 

Ten Papers. 
BY PROFESSORS AUBERLEN, GE3S, AND OTHERS. 

New. Edition, crown Svo, $2.50. 

Contents. 



Introduction. By Trc! 

What is Faith? By Professor Riggen- T 
bach. 

Nature of God. By Wolfgang Friedrich 
Gess. 

Sin ; Its Nature and Consequences. By 
Ernest Stahelin. 

The Old Testament Dispensation and 
the Heathen World. By Professor 
Auberlen. 

The Person of Jesus Christ. By Pro- 
fessor Riggenbach. 

Christ's Atonement for Sin. By Wolf- 
gang Friedrich Gess. 



The Resurrection and Ascension of 
Jesus Christ. By Professor Auber- 
len. 

The Holy Spirit and the Christian 
Church. By S. Preiswerk. 

The Doctrine of Justification by Faith. 
By Dr. Immanuel Stockmeyer. 

The Future. By Ernest Stahelin. 

Part I. The Immortality of tus 

Soul. 
Part II. Eternal Life. 



I that c 






i with t 



PRAYING AND WORKING. 

BY THE REY. W. FLEMING STEYENSON. 
Crown Svo, $1.53. Pocket edition, price $1. 



' Praying and Workin = , 
each, of his clergy with a copy. Tbe Bishop would " Mr. Stevenson's book o 

like to see this united at tae pres- of suffering to thousands — c 

ent time, as he is persuaded that much good would to all. It will prove a soi 

result." active, and an inccutivj t_> 

"Since Dr. Guthrie published his celebrated cluster Examiner. 



LIST OF BOOKS. 



THE COLLECTED WRITINGS OF EDWARD IRVING. 

EDITED BY HIS NEPHEW, THE EEV. G. CARLYLE, M.A. 



5 Yols. demy Svo, $20. 



" Irving, almost alone aming recent men, lived 



raphy,"— Saturday Rcvi 



" Edward Irving had the power of reaching tha 
true sublime, and the English language can show 
no more magnificent specimens of religious elo- 
quence than those which are contained in his col- 
lected writings."— London Times. 



MISCELLANIES FROM THE COLLECTED WRITINGS OF 
EDWARD IRV'NG. 

Third Thousand. Tost Svo, $2.50. 



" It is bv such a volume as this, we are inclined 
to think, that Irving will come to be widely known 
to general readers. There are passages of a purely 
theological character wjiich, we think, display pro- 
found wisdom, and are models of clear, strong- 
living utterance. Thsy are practical and ethical 



' sayings,' that are as gold and rubies and dia- 
monds. We entirely approve the principle of its 
compilation, and welcome it as fitted, in a very re- 
markable manner, to quicken genuine and deep re- 
ligious feeling, and to impart earnestness and tores 
to" the religious life." — Nonconformist. 



OUTLINES OF THEOLOGY. 

BY ALEXANDER YINET. 

Post Svo, $3.T5. 

OUTLINES OF PHILOSOPHY AND LITERATURE. 

BY ALEXANDER YINET. 

Post Svo, $3. To. 

" These volumes are of great merit and extreme i . . . . Our readers will find in these volumes a rich 
interest. The editor, M. Astie, has done his work vein of vigorous thought, extremely suggestive, and 
with remarkable skill, and has succeeded in giving always pervaded by a devout and reverent spirit. 5 ' 
us a remarkable embodiment of M. Vinet's think- ■ — British Quarterly Review. 
ing en the several subjects that pass under review. | 



THE RESTORATION OF THE JEWS: 

The History, Principles, and Bearings of the Question. 

BY DAVID BROWN, D.D., 

Professor of Theology, Aberdeen, Author of " The Second Advent." 

Crown Svo, $2. 



8 ALEXANDER STEAIIAX & CO. S ' 

WORKS BY NORMAN MACLEOD, D.D. 

Sixteenth Thousand, considerably enlarged, crown Svo, $1.50. 

THE EARNEST STUDENT: 

Beixg Memorials of Johx Mackintosh. 

" Full of the most instructive materials and ad- i peruse it without being quickened by its examph? 
Tiirably compiled, we are sure that a career of un- of candor, assiduity, and happy self-consecration." 
isual popularity awaits it ; nor can any student I — Excelsior. 



Thirty-third Thousand, crown Svo, 25 cents. 

WEE DAVSE : 

The Stoet of a Child's Life. 



" ' AVee Davie ' is a tale of real life, simple in 
style, unexciting in incident, plain in meani 
richly imbued with that charm of nature's truth 
and nature's pathos which is the most powerful of 
literary spells. Readers ought to acquaint them- 
selves with this exauisite little story." — The 
Dial. 



selves with this exquisite little story." 



Tenth Thousand, crown Svo, $1.50. 

THE OLD LIEUTENANT AND HIS SON. 






" We place ' The Old Lieutenant and his Son ' 1 " Beyond any book that we know, this story of 
in the very first rank of fiction. It contains re- Norman Macleod's will tend to produce manly 
markable evidence of the author's great talent." — kindness and manly piety." — The Patriot. 
Daily News. I 



Tenth Thousand, crown Svo, $1.50. 

PARISH PAPERS. 

" There is nothing narrow in sentiment, tame in i the Gospels rather than creeds ; whose teaching is 
thought, or prosy in style in these papers. Each that of a Christ-loving man rather than that of a 
paper is small "in compass, but big with noble professional preacher ; and whose nature is royal 
thoughts. It is just such a book as we should ex- and not menial in its faculties and instincts."—* 
v -t from an author whose Christianity is that of j The Homilist. 



Eighth Thousand, fine edition, cloth, gilt, $1.50 ; cheaper edition, $1. 

THE GOLD THR EAD : 

A Stoey foe' the Young. 
Illustrated by J. D. Watsox, Gouelay Steele, and J. Macwhirtee. 

"This is one of the prettiest as it is one of the I ture. "Wherever there are children, if our adric* 
best children's books in the language. Dr. Mac- is taken, there will be a Gold Thread." — Cald 
leod is great as a preacher and writer, but he is no- (Ionian Mercury. 
vhere greater than in the field of nursery litcra- I 



LIST OF BOOKS. 



WOKKS BY DORA GEEENWELL. 



CHRISTINA, AND OTHER POEMS. 

New edition, in small 8vo ; price, $1.75. 



"Here is a poet as tme as George Herbert or 
Henry Vaughan or our own Cowper. With no 

[effort, no consciousness of any end but that of utter- 
ing the inmost thoughts and desires of the heart, 

'they flow out as clear, as living, as gladdening as 
the wayside well — coining from "out the darkness of 
the central depths, filtered into purity by time and 



ivel. Thew 



'■■ 'l' 10 



impid and unforced, 

singing their own fjuiet tune, n f saddening, though 
sometimes sad, and th^r darkness— not that of ob- 
scurity, but of depth — like tlr.it of the deep sea. 
We advise our readers tj possess the book, and get 



the ioy and the surprise of so much real Vuougl t 
nia set to music." — 
The North British Review. * 

" Miss Greenwell is specially endowedas a writer 
of sacred poetry ; and it is the rarest realm of all 
with the fewest competitors for its crown. She 
seems to us to be peculiarly fitted with natural gifts 
ambers' of the human heart, 
and to be spiritually endowed to walk there, with 
a brightening influence, cheering, soothing, exalting 
rds of comfort and looks of lore, as a kind 
of Florence Nightingale walking the hospital c" 
ailing souls," ' 



-The Athenaum. ° 



THE PATI ENCE OF HOPE. 

New edition, in small Octavo ; price, $1. 

" This is the most thoughtful and suggestive book b rough by the golden light 

our day."— The Witness. of Christian feeling."— The News of the Churches. 

'* We cannot express the pleasure with which we "A work of singular philosophic power, as well 
ve read this exquisitely written book. ... It is as poetic beauty." — Family Ireasury. 
aceived in the spirit of a meditative philosophy, | 



A PRESENT HEAVEN. 

New edition, in small Octavo ; price, $1. 



TWO FRIENDS. 

New edition, small Octavo ; price, $1. 



—London Review. 



ESSAYS. 

BY DORA GREENWELL. 



[In the Press, 



10 



ALEXANDER STRAHANT & CO. S 



CHRISTIAN COMPANIONSHIP FOR RETIRED HOURS. 

Antique, Gilt, $1.50. 



THE PATHWAY OF PROMISE. 



Preparation for the Jour- 
ney. 
Promised Blessings. 
The Bow in the Cloud. 
Duty and Interest. 
Guardianship. 
Jehovah. 



Contentment. 

Diligence. 

Daily Strength. 

Progress. 

Assurance. 

Carefulness. 

Abiding with God. 



Gratitude. 

Prayer. 

Divine Teaching. 

Fidelity. 

God's Presence. 

Rest. 



Nintieth Thousand. 32mo, 75 cents. 

ABLE TO SAVE ; 

Or, Encouragement to Patient Waiting. 



The Chastening Rod. 
Vain is the Help of Man. 
The Cry of Distress. 
Past Joj^s. 
Submission. 
Thou art my God. 



The Remembrancer. 
Not Forsaken. 
Be not Afraid. 
If Need Be. 
Heavier Sorrows. 
Sunshine. 



Grace Sufficient. 

If the Lord Will. 

The Swelling of Jordaa, 

Bearing Fruit: 

Christian Joy. 

Contentment. 



Twentieth Thousand. Small Svo, $1. 



THE THRONE OF GRACE. 



Gracious Invitation. 
Answered Prayer. 
Promised Help. 
The Mighty Intercessor. 



The Compassionate High 

Priest. 
Help and Deliverance. 
More Grace. 
A Divine Promise. 



Christian Joy. 
Mutual Prayer. 
Persevering Prayer. 
A Sacred Pledge. 



Tenth Thousand. Small Svo, $1. 



THE SUNDAY EVENING BOOK 

OF PAPERS FOR FAMILY READING, BY 



James Hamilton, D.D., 
Dean Stanley, 
Rev. Thomas Binney, 

Tenth Thousand. 32mo, 75 cen'.s. 



Rev. W. M. Pun'Chon, 
Joun Eadie, D.D., LL.D., 
J. R. Macduff, D.D. 



LIST -OF BOOKS. 



11 



CONVERSION : 



Illustrated et Examples Recorded ix the Bible. 
BY THE BEY. ADOLPH SAPHIR, Greenwich. 



New edition. Small Svo, $1.50. 



liich is mark- 

the themes of his discourses. The volume forms* a 
very pleasant and hallowed book for quiet Sunday 
afteEnoons."— Christian World. 

• u With its deep insight, its glowing tone of love 
and gladness, and it? abundance of thought, origin- 
al, wise, and beautiful, this is a rare and remark- 



able book. Mr. Saphir is a ' householder vrh& 
bringeth forth out ot his treasure things new and 
old ;' and whilst he secures our confidence by his 
loyalty to the unchanging verities, he deserves our 
gratitude for many new and happy applications. 
X r do we know many books where so much schol- 
arship is brought to boar with so little ostentation, 
manv books adapted to so wide a range of read- 
----- r, D.D., in English Pres- 



THE WORDS OF THE ANGELS; 

Or, Their Visits to the Earth, axd the Messages they Delivered, 

BY RUDOLPH STIER, D.D., 

Author of " The Words cf the Risen Saviour." 



Sixth Thousand. In Crown Svo, cloth ; price, $1.50. 



ourselves been much gratified with its p 
"—The Journal of Sacred Literature. 
A very interesting volume by one of the n 

spiritual and suggestive of biblical expositors. 

lot be more'highly praised than in saying • 

is the best characteristics of the author's 



versally prized work on ' The Words of the Lord 
Jesus.' " — The Nonconformist. 

" ' The Words of the Angels ' is full of just and 
beautiful thought. Each narrative of angelic com- 
munication is carefully and beautifully expounded, 
and its. meaning an :dout. The book 

is one with which every devout reader will be 
charmed." — The Patriot. 



MY MINISTERIAL EXPERIENCES. 

BY THE REY. DR. EUCHSEL, Berlin. 



Handsomely printed and bound, in crown Svo ; price, $1.50. 



Dr. Euchsel is not only a ' man of the time,' 
one of the men who are" for all time, and whom 
i might almost be excused for the boldness of 
ber calling men of eternity. . . Had we a friend 
h a spare half hsur we scarcely know any book 
t we could put into his hand with more confi- 
dence, assured that, open it where he might, he 
could not fail to alight on something that would 
make the half hour memorable." — Edinburgh 
Vzily Review. 

' ' This i3 an interesting volume. It contains very 



maintained the pure Gospel in the midst of abound 
ing rationalism. The book is written in an enter- 
taining style. It is full of anecdotes which curi- 
ously illustrate a pastor's life in Germany." — Lon- 
don Record. 

" We heartily commend this little book as alike 
full of the interest of another religious life than 
ours, and of wise and holy counsels for theirs and 
ours alike."— London Patriot. 



12 



ALEXANDER STRATI AX & CO.'S 



PERSONAL NAMES IN THE BSBLE. 

BY THE REV. TV F. WILKINSON, M.A 

Vicar of St. Werbcrgh's, Derby, and Joint-Editor o? "Webster axd-Wilkix- 
son's Greek Testament." 



New Edition, small 8vo, $2.50. 



I. On the Nature, Origin, and Use of 

Proper Names. 
IT. On Surnames. 

III. Names of God. 

IV. Names of God, (Jehovah.) 

V. Names compounded with the Names 
of God, (El.) 
VI. Names compounded with the Names 
of God, (Jehovah.) 

" This is a valuable book in many ways ; learn- I 
ed, laborious, and interesting ; full of matter in a 
small compass, which will be especially acceptable 1 



VTJ. Proper Names formed from 

Names of Heathen Deities. 
VIIT. Birth Names. 
IX. Sacramental Names. 
X. Miscellaneous Names. 
XI. Heathen Names. 
XII. New Testament Names. 



ROMANISM AND RATIONALISM AS OPPOSED TO PURE 
CHRISTIANITY. 

BY JOHN CAIRNS, D.D. 
Crown Svo, cloth, 75 cents. 



THE NEAR AND HEAVENLY HORIZONS. 

BY THE COUNTESS DE GASPARIN. 
Twenty-eighth Thousand. Crown Svo, cloth antique, $1.50. 



" This is a charming book. Madame de Gaspa- | " The pictures of nature here are wondrous, 

rin has the touch of genius which has the strange This book speaks to the hearts of us all." — Mac- 

gift of speaking to every one in their own tongue." mi'lnn's Magazine. 

— Athenozum. " This book is poetry in prose, in very deed. V.'a 

"'The Near and the Heavenly Horizons ' is a have seldom met with a more delicious volume. 

book full of beauty and pathos." — British Quar- The authoress carries a perfect witchery i 

ttrly Review. I pen."— London Quarterly Review. 



" There are times when the soul cr: 
ance for its deeper longings. The Coi 
parin has given expression to these dt 



HUMAN SADNESS. 

BY THE COUNTESS DE GASPARIN. 

Author of " The Near and the Heavenly Horizons." 

Small 8vc, $1.50. 



es, and has ' 



LIST OF BOOKS. 



13 



WORKS BY HENRY HOLBEACH. 
TANGLED TALK. 

An Essayist's Holiday. 
BY HENRY HOLBEACH. 

Second Edition. Post Svo, $2.50. 



" ' Tangled Talk ' is the work of a true essayist. 
.... It is a mosaic of suggestive bits ; or, since 
mosaic is a false image, let us say it is a skein of 
bright and broken threads, every one of which may 



. . into the reader's o 

„ color and strength to them for the future." 
■lltuUrutcd Times. 



1 thoughts, 
lie future." 



Mr. Matthew Arnold. 
Mr Alexander Bain, 
Mr. Thomas Carlyle, 



HENRY HOLBEACH: 

STUDENT IN LIFE AND PHILOSOPHY. 

A Narrative and a Discussion. 

With Letters to 

Mr. Arthur Helps, 



Mr. G. II. Lewes, 
Rev. II. L. Manssl, 

AND OTHERS. 

2 Yols. post 8vo, $5.50. 



Rev. F. D. Maurice, 
Mr. John Stuart Mill, 
Rev. Dr. J. H. Newman, 



" Mr. Holbeach's volumes have remarkable mer- 
its, nor are the volumes, like so many books of the 
kind, dull and wearisome. The writer can enliven 
his subject, and possesses some quiet humor." — 



ntly to the cultivated reader." — Pall Mall Ga- 

" In the picture of the obscure Puritan colony 
there are touches worthy of George Eliot."-— 



LILLIPUT LEVEE. 

A Book of Rhymes for Children. 

BY HENRY HOLBEACH. 

With Illustrations by J. E. Millais, R.A., and GL J. Pinwell. $2. 



" A rollicking little volume of children's poems, 
which will be a prime favorite with the young. 
Add to this that Mr. Millais has contributed his 
illustrations, and that the others by Mr. Pinwell 
are good, and we have almost said enough to indi- 
cate the attractions of this charming little book. 
The absurdities will take wonderfully with the 



" ' Lilliput Levee ' will cause uproarious laughter 
amongst boys and girls. Ludicrous enough is tha 
story of Stalky Jack, a little boy, who, losing his 
way in a long walk, wandered to the Giant's coun- 
try, where he was detained a prisoner for a year 
and a day. The magnitude of the land of Anakim 
so disarranged his organ i ight, that on his re- 
turn hoTve ho found li'l natural objects too small 
far his li'dng. The illustrations are capital."—! 



1-1 A-LEXAXDEB STBAHAN & CO.'S 

WOEKS BY BOBEET BTJCHA3SAH. 

i. 
IDYLS AND LEGENDS OF INVE3BURN. 

BY ROBERT BUCHANAN, 

Author of " Undertones." 
Small Svo, $1.?5. 

tenderly told. story, beautifully 



* " Aa far as my judgment goes, tliia is genuine 
poetry ; very sweet and noble in itc feeling, very 
true and simple in expression." — From Article, on 
Robert Buchanan, by G. H. Leives, in the Fort 
I Revieto. 
" We do not call to mind any volume of modern 



painted picture, and abundant spontaneous rr 
— Illustrated Times. 

" A volume of genuine poetry of distinguished 
merit."— Fall Mall Gazette. 



UNDERTONES. 

BY ROBERT BUCHANAN. 

Second Edition. Revised and Enlarged. Small 8 vo, $1.75. 

" Poetry, and of a noble kind." — Athenceum. I feeling— of subtle perception of beauty, and h 
" The offspring of a true poet's heart and brain, nious expression." — Daily JSetvs. 
they are full of imagination, fancy, thought, and > 



LONDON POEMS. 

BY ROBERT BUCHANAN. 

Small Svo. [In Preparation. 



THE STORY OF DAVID GBAY. 

BY ROBERT BUCHANAN. 

Author of " Undertones." [In Preparation. ) 

A New Edition on Toned Paper is now ready of 

WORDSWORTH'S P0EIV1S FOR THE YOUNG. 

Illustrated by Macwhirter and Pettie, with a Yignette by Millais. 

Elegantly bound, in square crown Svo, cloth gilt; price, $2.50. 

Cheaper edition, $1.75. 

"A perfectly charming book for the young."— i "A very elegant volume, full of charming wood- 
The Reader. cuts. These poems are for the better moments, , i 

" One of the prettiest books imaginable. As a the quiet hours of boys and girls. The illustra- > 
present fir the yonri t it can scarcely be surpassed." tions are full of cleverness, sweetness, and truth," ; 
— The Morning Journal. I —Scotsman^ 



LIST OF BOOKS. 15 



THE RECREATIONS OF A COUNTRY PARSON. 

Popular Edition. Crown Svo, $1.50 ; extra gilt $2 



«HE GRAVER THOUGHTS OF A COUNTRY PARSON. 

BY THE AUTHOR OF "RECREATIONS OF A COUNTRY PARSON." 
Crown Svo, $1.50; extra gilt, $2. 

'^tl^^l^l^ZT^lTthZthott I lSt BSlonit u ffiind and *° d 7-"- 

• *e papers, a genial, cheering, manly,' anSlthy | ' *'* C A, "' cA Wan ' 



COUNSEL AND COMFORT. 

Spokex from a City Pulpit. 

BY THE AUTHOR OF "RECREATIONS OF A COUNTRY PARSON." 

Crown Svo, $1.50 ; extra gilt, $2. 

" Here there is evident heart-ivork— an earnest I H t^ fu* „„*•„ e 

Mthat ought ever to be apparent in those Tee! dnnL L ■ - f ° Ur reader8 > certa!n the 7 will i, 
, o guide counsel, and comfort. Ve have pe-~ ft? ^ ° Pmi ° n HS to ita ^iU.'^Lturdu 
* <". the volume with pleasure, and bo commend I 

THE JOURNAL OF EUGENIE DE GUERIN. 

EDITED EY M. TREBUTIEN. 

Crown Svo, $2. 



li v e "?u^? b1 ^ P^ oof of the impression made 
•wee by this book that the prize given by the 
h Academy was awarded to it, and that it has 
' ' h w U ^ h ten edltion3 in le9S than two years 
- ' J; % na T e never read a more touching record 
.woted piety, sisterly affection, ano 7 ' love 

g as death.' Eugenie de Guerin is an Anti- 
JL t I? £ Ce T 8 r ubli T me< i and ennobled by the 
■^.an faith. Her Journal is the outpouring of 

f the purest and m.,st saintly minds that ever 
•ed upon earth."— Edinl<urc,h Review 

JwT.Tv. 6lIe - de G Uerin > Journal waa soon 
■ fier death printed for Drivate circulation On 
opearance, \l Sainte 6euve, the first of livin- 
-en cnUcs, welcomed it with a most cordial and 



in fZVh f-'f 6 ? m ° nth3 > > m * soon had^ls pice 
Zu a 1 . lt ? ratu ^ e Permanently fixed oy the fa, 
ft ^™l£ :' Acad 4 ; ' sjnce y the e nU 



,^„ ulc ucuision oi tne- Academy;' since then it 
has steadily increased in popularity We know of 
m modern literature morYcheTring in iU 
: ' E& tender ? race than th» record of the 
tulLc IZ "«? Jmd ab °^ t this old chate au in Lan- 
guedoc, and this unconscious picture of the noble 
^*SL maideawUcl1 tt e«hriu e 3."-^,"„„! 



Uniform with " The Journal of Eugenie De Guerin," 

THE LETTERS OF EUGENIE DE GUERIN. 

EDITED BY M. TREBUTIEN. 
Crown Svo. $2. 



ib ALEXANDER STEAIIANT & CO/S 

The Ninth Thousand is now ready of 

BEGINNING LIFE: 

Chapters for Yocng Men on Religion, Study, and Business. 

BY JOHN TULLOCH, D.D., ST. MARY'S COLLEGE, ST. ANDREWS. 

Handsomely printed and bound. Crown 8vo ; price, $1.75. 

"A book largely imbued with warm religious I about to enter on tlie battle of life."— tte Morn 
principle, and a deep-toned, out-spoken, healthy ing Journal. 
charity. We know no more fitting book for youths I 

The Eighth Thousand i» now ready of 

PAPERS FOR THOUGHTFUL GIRLS. 

"With Sketches of some Girls' Liyes. 
BY SARAH TYTLER. 

With Illustrations by Millais. 

Crown Svo, cloth, extra gilt ; price, $2. 

" One of the most charming books of its class that | work which will be popular in many a home xvheg 
we have ever read. It is even superior to Miss Mu- her name has become among her own friends noih. 

.n's Thoughts ing more than a memory." — Th$ Morning Heraltl, 1 



The Third Thousand is now ready of 

GOD'S GLORY IN THE HEAVENS. 

BY WILLIAM LEITCH, D.D., PRINCIPAL OF QUEEN'S COLLEGE, CANADA. 
Crown Svo, cloth, extra. With Illustrations. Price, $2.50. 

We cannot conclude our notice of Dr. Leitch's ! est and most ennobling sentiments, 
book without dwelling upon the admirable manner I books on popular 
in which the astronomical facts contained in it are — The Reader. 
tlended with practical observations and the high- I 



Elegant Edition. In One Yolume, $2. 

STUDIES FOR STORIES. 

FROM GIRLS' LIVES. 
Emily's Ambition. 

" Simple in style, warm with human affection, I such as envy, misplaced ambition, sentimentalism, 

and written in faultless English, these five stories indolence, jealousy. In all of them the actors are 

are a real source of great delight for all who can young girls, and we cannot imagine a better book 

find pleasure in really good works of prose fiction," for voung ladies." — Pall Mall Gazette. 

—Atliencsum. " There could not be a better book to put into the 

" Each of these studies is a drama in itself, illus- hands of young ladies."— Spectator. 
trative of the operation of some particular passion — J 



LIST OF 'BOOKS. 



17 



A YEAR AT THE SHORE. 

BY P. II. GOSSE, F.R.S. 



With 36 Illustrations by the Author. Printed in Colors by Leighton Brothers. 

Crown Svo, $4. 

" The volume before us sustain* Mr. G.->sse's rep- • gravings -which make present, indeed, to the eye 

tat ion, both as an observer and as an illustrator, what description had before mude very distinct "to 

i is a truly handsome book, and we know not j the mind." — Eclectic Review. 

hieh to admire the most, the easy and felicitous | "A delicious book deliciously illustrated. The 

vie in which the writer conveys us over sands and ; study of natural history is always interesting, and 

saweeds, into creeks, bays, aiiJ caverns, making Mr. Gosse is a genial and enthusiastic instructor." 

le commonest thing almost romantic in its new at- ! Illustrated London News. 

re of interest, or the charming and life-like en- I 



A SUMMER IN SKYE. 

BY ALEXANDER SMITH. 



New and cheaper edition, with colored Frontispiece. $2.50. 



■y different fashion, affords delicious read- 
ing also. The food provided is unlike that provided 
by the guide-writer. Here you will gain more wis- 
dom than knowledge, more suggestions than facts, 
more of what is felicitous in expression than of 
what is precise in detail. Mr. Smith can, when he 
pleases, describe Highland life and Highland sce- 
nery with considerable felicity, but he likes best to 
relate the impression made upon his own mind by 
irLat he heard or saw. His egotism is never offen- 



cften very charming. If (he traveller is 
lost in the essayist, who will not prefer 
an Elia to a Pennant ?" — Daily Netvs. 

" There is in this work so much excellent writ- 
ing, good thought, and picturesque description, that 
it must rank among the very best books of the sea- 
son. . . . Since the great Professor Christopher 
North's time, there has been no greater landscape- 
painter in words than Mr. Smith ; and the ' Sum- 
mer in Skye ' is by far his best effort ill this branch 
of literature."— Inverness Courier, 



DREAMTHORP : 

A Book of Essays written in the Country. 

BY ALEXANDER SMITH. 

Crown Svo, $1.50 ; extra gilt, $2. 



"A capital pocket companion to carry into the 
many quiet Dreamthorps of our native land ; a 
book to be read in the spirit of lazy leisure to the 
sound of babbling brooks and whispering woods. 
It is exquisitely printed, handy, handsome, and 
cheap." — Atkenaum. 



" Mr. Alexander Smith comes to ns with more 
natural vitality, with a culture that is rarer, and 
with a broader, deeper range of sympathy, than 
any one who has attempted essay-writing, in the 
proper sense, in his own day." — Nonconformist. 



THE REGULAR SWISS ROUND. 

In Three Trips. 
BY THE REV. HARRY JONES, M.A. 
With Illustrations. Small 8vo, $1.75. 

" Contains much valuable information for the ii 

perienced tourist." — Patriot. I book" will give plea 

" Mr. Jones's book will no doubt find and r dcase ' zettt. 



ALEXANDER STEAHAN & CO.'s 



HEADS AND HANDS IN THE WORLD OF LABOR. 

BY W. GARDEN BLAIKIE, D.D., F.R.S.E., 

Author of " Better Bays for Working People." 

Crown Svo, $1.50. 



" I have read ' Heads and Hands in the World of 
Labor' with the liveliest interest. Its curious and 
entertaining details, the kindly and Christian tone 
which it uses both to masters and workers, the ex- 
amples which it holds up both for imitation and 
warning, the sagacity and prudence which charac- 



terize its practical suggestions, and the exceeding' y 
attractive style in which the whole is set forth, 
leave nothing to be desired but that every buyer 
and seller of labor in the country had a copy of it, 
and imbibed its sp i fruma letter of 

the Rev, Dr. Guthrie, 



BETTER DAYS FOR WORKING PEOPLE. 

BY W. GARDEN BLAIKIE, D.D., F.R.S.E. 

Crown Svo, boards ; price, 75 cents. 

"I lately read a book which I would strongly I on every thing relating to the working man, on 
recommend to your attention. It is an excellent every thing which relates to the improvement of 
book, on every part of the working-man's fortune the mindi.'*— Lord Brougham at Working Men's 
and labor, and is called ' Better Days for Working Meeting, Edinburgh, October 9, 1863. 
People,' la this small volume I find the best rules I 



ESSAYS ON WOMAN'S WORK. 

BY BESSIE RAYNER PARKES. 

Second Edition. Small Svo, $1.50. 
" Every woman ought to read Miss Parkes's little volume on ' Woman's Work.' " — Times. . 



WOMAN'S WORK IN THE CHURCH ; 

Being Historical Notes on Deaconesses and Sisterhoods. 

BY JOHN MALCOLM LUDLOW. 

Small 8vo, $2. 

iU3 for the full development of 



OUR INHERITANCE IN THE GREAT PYRAMID. 

BY PROFESSOR C. PIAZZI SMYTH, F.R.SS.L. and E., 

Astronomer Royal for Scotland. 

Square Svo, with Photograph and Plates. Price $4. 

"We recommend this very fascinating, paradox- | venturous theorizing."— London Quarterly Re- 



LIST OF BOOKS. 19 

DE PROFUNDIS: 

A Tale of the Social Deposits. 

BY WILLIAM GILBERT, 

Author of " Shirley Hall Asylum," Etc. 

Crown Svo, $2. 



'Mr. Gilbert's novels do more to enlarge the 
field of actual experience than those of any other 

writer of the day De Foe and Mr. Gilbert 

'alone of English novelists seem to give the ore of 
English life, while other novelista of equal power 
give only the extracted metal. . . / . We think 
4 De Profundis ' the most powerful of Mr. Gilbert's 
powerful stories." — The Spectator. 
1^.' We know few books which will give the read- 
er bo, true an idea of the poor of London as this 
tale. '.We know of none which convey that infor- 
mation in so pleasing a form. Long acquaintance 
with the same classes as those from which Mr. 
Gilbert has selected the characters who pass before 



the reader in the pages pf this novel enables us to 
guarantee the fidelity of his portraits and the real- 
ity of his descriptions." — The Churchman. 

"" In truth nothing is more rare in literature th.iB 
to come across a story-teller, pure and simple. 
Such a writer was De "Foe, such a writer is Mr. 

Gilbert ' De Profundis ' is a novel of very 

nal power, full of dry, calm humor, and, 
besides, thoroughly interesting as a mere tale. . . . 
The Newgate Calendar cannot take you down to 
lower levels than Mr. Gilbert takes you. Worcs- 
worth rarely lifts you to higher moods than y.'n 
may reach if you surrender yourself to his simjjW 
truthfulness."— Pall Mall Gazette. 



THE MAGIC MIRROR : 

A Round of Tales for Old and Young. 

BY WILLIAM GILBERT. 
With 80 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, gilt, $2.25. 

PLAIN WORDS ON HEALTH: 

Five Lay Sermons. 

1. The Doctor— Our Duties to Him. I 3. Children, and How to Guide Them. 

2. The Doctor— His Duties to Us. 4. Health. 

5. Medical Odds and Ends. 

BY JOHN BROWN, M.D., 

Author of " Rab and His Friends." 
Small Svo ; paper cover, 25 cents ; cloth, 50 cents. 



THE POSTMAN'S BAG. 

A Stort-Book for Boys and Girls. 

B*Y THE REY. J. DE LIEFDE, London. 

With 16 full-page Illustrations, in square 8vo, cloth, gilt ; price, $ 1.50. 

" John de Liefde is a man whom to know is to | little stories, and we are sure that they can learn 
-"— ind love. This little volume is like its from them nothing but what is good." — London 

-imnl.- n-fl. KC Ulj nhrictJin Wo linnw X>,. ,,'../, 



20 ALEXASTDEB STEAHAX & CO.'s 

A DUTCHMAN'S DIFFICULTIES WITH THE ENGLISH 
LANGUAGE, 

BY JOIIN DE LIEFDE. 

Author of " Six Months Among the Charities of Europe." 
Taper cover, 25 cents. 



LESSONS FROM A SHOEMAKER'S STOOL. 

BY JOHN KERR, 

Iler Majesty's Inspector of Schools. 
Paper cover, £5 cents. 

CAREY, IWARSHMAN, AND WARD. 

The Serampore Missionaries. 

BY JOHN CLARK MARSHMAN. 

Popular edition, crown Svo, $1.50. 

DUCHESS AGNES, AND OTHER POEMS. 

BY ISA CRAIG. 

Small Svo, $1.75. 



BOOKS PBEPABnre. 
LIVES OF INDIAN OFFICERS; 

JForming A Biographical History of the Civil and Military Services. 

BY JOHN W. KAYE, 

Author of " The Life of Lord Metcalf," etc. 

In 2 Yols. demy Svo. 

THE REIGN OF LAW. 

ESSAYS BY THE DUKE OP ARGYLL. 



LIST OF BOOKS. 21 

E00K3 PKEPABING.-Contixraed. 
FAMILIAR LECTURES ON SCIENTIFIC SUBJECTS. 

BY SIP. JOHN F. W. HEItSCIIEL, BART. 

REMINISCENCES OF A HIGHLAND PARISH. 

BY NORMAN MACLEOD, D.D., 
One of Her Majesty's Chaplains. 

DR. AUSTEN'S GUESTS. 

BY WILLIAM GILBERT, 

TRAVELS IN THE SLAVONIC PROVINCES OF TURKEY 
IN EUROPE. 

BY G. MUIR MACKENZIE AND A. P. IRBY. 

THE PROSPECTS AND RESOURCES OF AMERICA. 

ASCERTAINED DURING A VISIT TO THE STATES I> T THE AUTUMN OF 1?65. 

BY SIR S. MORTON PETO, 
Member of the British nouse- of Commons. 

HYMNS AND HYMN-WRITERS OF GERMANY. 

BY REV. W. FLEMING STEVENSON. 

MASTER AND SCHOLAR. 

Poems, Original and Translated. 
BY E. H. PLUMPTRE, M.A., KING'S COLLEGE. 

EASTWARD. 

BY NORMAN MACLEOD, D.D., 

One of Her Britannic Majesty's Chaplains. 



22 ALEXANDER STEAHAX & CO. S 

BOOKS PEEP ABrNG.— Continued. 
THE LIGHT AND LIFE OF MEN. 

BY JOHN YOUNG, LL.D., 
Author of " The Christ of History," etc. 



COSAS DE ESP ANA; 

Or, Spain and the Spaniards. 
By the Author of " Flemish Interiors." 

WEALTH AND WELFARE. 

BY JEREMIAH GOTTHELF. 



MEN AND MONEY. 

BY JEREMIAH GOTTHELP. 

KATE THE GRANDMOTHER; 

Or, the True Wat out of Trouble. 
EY JEREMIAH GOTTHELP. 



A SECOND SERIES OP 

THE PARABLES OF OUR LORD. 

BY THOMAS GUTHRIE, D.D, 

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CHRIST'S TEACHING. 

BY C. J. VAUGHAN, D.D., 

Yicar of Donca?ter. 



LIST OF BOOKS. 23 



A SMALL LIBEAET FOR PRESENTATIONS. 
STRAHAN'S POPULAR SERIES. 

COMPLETE IN TWELVE VOLUMES. 
Uniformly bound in cloth, neat; price, $15. 

f There are now Twelve Books issued in this Series. They form & 
small Library. The Works being all of general and enduring interest, 
and being printed and bound in elegant style, it is believed they are 
•well suited for presentation purposes, and the Publishers beg leave to 
recommend them accordingly. 

The following are the Titles : 
1 rpiIE RECREATIONS OF A COUNTRY PARSON. Originally published in 

JL " Fraser's Magazine." First Series. 
# 2 TDARISn PAPERS: Personal, Social, and Congregational. By Norman Mac- 
_L leod, D.D., of the Barony Parish, Glasgow. 

3 "DRATINCr AND WORKING ; Being some Account of what some Men can do 

I when in Earnest. By William Fleming Stevenson. 

4 Q PEAKING TO THE HEART. By Thomas Guthrie, D.D., Author of "i 
O Plea for Ragged Schools," " The Gospel in ^zekiel," Etc. 

5 rpHE GRAYER THOUGHTS OF A COUNTRY PARSON. By the Author of 

_1_ " Recreations of a Country Parson." 

|"Y MINISTERIAL EXPERIENCES. By the Rev Dr. Buchsel, Berlin. 



'M Y 



7 rpHE OLD LIEUTENANT AND HIS SON. By Norman Macleod, D.D. Pop- 

JL ular Edition. 

8 ~T\REAMTHORP. A Book of Essays written in the Country. By Alexander 
J_y Smith, Author of " A Life Drama," etc. 



10 /COUNSEL AND COMFORT. Spoken from a City Pulpit. By the Author pf 
KJ " Recreations of a Country Parson." 

11 /""^AREY, MARSHMAN, AND WARD, THE SERAMPORE MISSIONARIES. 
\y BynTonN Clark Marshman. 4.,^. 

12 "OEGINNING LIFE. Chapters for Young Men on Religion, Study, and Busi- 
J_) ness. By John Tulloch, D.D. 



THE BOUND VOLUMES OF GOOD WORDS. 

There are now Six Yolumes published of " Good Words." Each Volume forms a 
complete book, no paper being continued from one volume to another. 

The price of the volumes is $3.75 each. They are bound in extra mauve cloth, 
full gilt, and illustrated, and form suitable reward and presentation books. 

They contain the following among many other important contributions . 

HEREWARD, THE LAST OF THE ENGLISH. A New Romance. By Charles 
Kingslky, Author of " Westward Ho !" With 12 Illustrations. 

SWALD CRAY : The New Three- Volume Story. By Mrs. Henry Wood, Author 
of " East-Lynne," Etc., with Mr. Walker's Illustrations. (57 Chapters.) 



O 



ALEXJlSTKSU STRAHAN & CO.'S LIST OF BOOKS. 



(12 Papers.) 

PERSONAL RECOLLECTIONS. By Isaac Taylor, Author of " The Natural Hi- 
tory of Enthusiasm." (12 Papers.) 

EVENINGS WITH WORKING PEOPLE IN THE BARONY CHURCH. Bj, 
Norman Macleod, P.P. (11 Papers.) 

A YEAR AT THE SHORE. By Philip Henry Gosse, F.R.S. With 35 Illustra- 
tions by the Author. (12 Papers.) 

THE RELIGION OF LIFE. Illustrated and Applied. By Thomas GtmiRiajj 
P.P., Edinburgh. (11 Papers.) 

CONTRIBUTIONS TO POPULAR SCIENCE. By Sir John Herschel, Bart. ft 
Papers.) 

f^\ OP'S GLORY IN THE HEAVENS. By the Rev. Principal Leitch. With 
V T Illustrations. (7 Papers.) [ 

MISTRESS AND MAID : A Household Story. By the Author of " John Halifax.^ 
Gentleman." With 12 Illustrations by J. E. Millats. (28 Chapters.) 

TT\S8AYS FOR SUNDAY REAPING. By John Caikd, P.P. (12 Papers.) 



A' 



(52 Papers.) 



E s 



/^vUT OF 



HARNESS. By Thomas Guthrie, P.P. (5 Papers.) 



STORIES. (" The Widow's Mite," li The Two Generals," and " Malachi's Cove.") 
By Anthony Trollope. 

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN GERMANY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. By/ 
Rev. W. F. Stevenson, Dublin. (10 Papers.) 

T AY SERMONS. By the Author of " Rab and his Friends." (5 Papers.) 



w 



SAYS IN SCIENCE. By Sir David Brewster. (G Papers.) 



s : 



HORT PAPERS FOR THE PAY. By Archbishop Whately. (14 Papers.) 



LIFE SKETCHES. (Our Bob, T. T. Fitzroy, Aunt Mary, Wee Davie, and Joseph 
Walker.) By Norman Macleod, P.P., Editor. 

*** As showing the public appreciation of these Volumes, th& 
Publishers may state that 82,000 of them (in addition to the 
circulation in Monthly Parts) have been sold. 

Strahan & Co.'s Publications can be bad of all respectable Book 
sellers, or mailed free on receipt of published prices, by 

STKAHAH & CO., 

11 II r 1Q'3/j 139 Grand Street, ETew-Tork. f 

JUL ""£ 12-4 



* 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Oct. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Driv8 
Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
(724)773-2111 



